Posted on 11/22/2012 10:31:36 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.
But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”
There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Palin couldn’t sell the brand. Come up with someone who can sell the brand and maybe that person can win.
Ofcourse Romney was the problem. He failed to reach out to the Conservative base. Ignore Conservatives and pay at the ballot box.
When the Romney team said so what if Conservatives don’t like his moderate ways where are Conservatives gonna go well they stayed home!
1. All or nothing issue voters on the Republican side.
2. Republican Party that cannot adapt to new ways to reach out to potential voters.
3. Voters who are just plain stupid.
There are other things.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
They never will until there is a candidate available who can show a natural support for ALL of the Conservative principles.
If you don't give the SoCons what they NEED, they will look elsewhere.
If you don't give the FiCons what they NEED, they will look elsewhere.
If you don't give the DefCons what they NEED, they will look elsewhere.
If you don't give the libertarians what they NEED, they will look elsewhere.
It isn't hard to give them what they need. Your sense of pragmatism is exactly the problem: Folks that believe in things... BIG things... Principles... are not going to compromise those principles for anyone. And they should not. And they shouldn't be asked to. That's why they are defined as 'principles'.
If one's customers aren't buying one's product, one would be better off to offer a better product, rather than blaming his customers.
Secondly, what makes you think that Palin cannot sell the brand? Did she give it a shot and fail?
If I remember correctly, McCain was at the top the ticket in 2008. The GOP libs and the dems joined up to make sure Palin does not get very far.
Thirdly, Palin, when she is going for it, does a lot better than all the monkeys the GOP put up.
RINOs and their GOPe supporters are the problem, but perhaps you think Michele Bachmann should have waited until after La Raza Rick committed seppuku (aka harakiri) in the debates.
The article has some good polling information, but from other articles I’ve read the Obama team used consumer data to target folks as well, ie Prius drivers. They also knew an entire demographic is basically ignorant about politics but pays lots of attention to celebs, and talk shows, etc. ie “those softball interviews, dinners with Clooney, etc”.
So while Romney was hitting issues, Obama was marketing himself - which when you think about it is probably the only way he could of won.
I wonder who the real architect of Obama’s win was, no way it was Axlerod, and Obama is the guy who hired the village idiot for VP.
When he said that he is for abortion being legal in the case of rape, incest and health of the mother.
Something was said. It isn’t a made up issue, and as I said if this is the sword you wish to throw yourself on, then there is the sword right over there.
Well, the enemy believes in one thing and one thing only.
Power.
And they will have it, because they are united, and we are not.
I believe the failure of moderates to vote may have caused Romney’s defeat. Six million fewer moderates and slightly fewer conservatives failed to vote than did in 2008. It has been said that the Obama ad blitz turned off the moderates to Romney. These were voters who already turned off to Obama. They saw not reason to vote for neither; so the stayed home.
The failure of the ORCA system sealed Romney’s defeat. This system would have prompted those intending to stay home with a reason to vote for Romney. That human, one-to-one contact, is the key to reaching moderates who are tuned out of politics until the last minute. That part of the strategy crashed for the Romney team.
I agree that someone other than Obama was the brains behind the strategies used.. I know that the democrats have used GOTV things to their advantage, imo. Such as early voting after Sunday church service, picking up people from rest homes/retirement centers and taking them to vote, making sure that those in centers that can’t get out apply for and complete an absentee ballot, etc.
Take care.
Yep, Steve, it’s going to happen again. Nothing was learned by our side.
I’m reading a great book right now, Game of Thrones, by George Martin. truly a rich fantasy universe and the depth of characterization is phenomenal. I didn’t think I would enjoy this book, Martin is a known liberal, and I don’t like liberals.
But what I do like to do is learn from the enemy, especially when that enemy has superior tactical knowledge and executes strategy in a manner that results in victory. If I am going to lose, then I am going to learn from thoe who defeated me and face them again with their own tactics.
There is a great quote form his book that conservatives need to learn, they need to understand it and they need to live it.
“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground”. -George R. Martin
“The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too “nice” is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections.”
Nothing wrong with this analysis. It’s spot on.
“Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge. And he got more votes from the dwindling white majority than Reagan did.”
Not sure about part a, but she’s right about part b. Therein lies the key to Republicans winning again. If they refuse to acknowledge this reality, and refuse to take action to win more “Euro votes”, they might not win again. But don’t expect the Pubbies to actually DO that — instead, they’re going to try to “make the party more attractive to Hispanics”. And if they insist on doing this, and change what the party represents, they’re walking a pathway to political disaster in 2014 and 2016.
“Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won’t be true next time. But we’re not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn’t conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough.”
Right again. The one thing that isn’t going to change is her point 3 above. The electorate has changed, and is still changing. It’s going to change significantly after the Obama amnesty — and make no mistake about it, that IS coming either next year or in 2014. And it won’t be because the Republicans try to stop it — they’ll be SUPPORTING it.
What does that mean Palin couldn’t sell the brand?
What brand, she and the tea party are the only winners going since 2008 for the republicans.
Romney was an historical loss, one for the history books.
Mitt came out against the party’s pro-life platform, came out for abortion on demand,(health) and homosexual Scout leaders and military, but Evangelicals still loyally gave their vote to him at 79%, unfortunately, Romney just isn’t a vote winner and didn’t pick up any votes from the millions lying on the table from 2008.
He was an incredibly unappealing, unconvincing candidate, no one was sure of anything about the famously chameleon like politician who would reverse, adopt and dispose of positions without warning.
I’m with you. Romeny was the weakest in the field. Unfortunately he was the last man standing after every candidate I preferred was picked off one by one.
I got behind him in the general election as by far the lesser of two weevils, but the ultimate result: utterly predictable.
In an election between two Santa Clauses, the Santa who offers presents THIS Christmas will always beat the Santa who offers his presents the Christmas after next.
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.