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.
American conservatism has become lost.
We are hiring foreigners, to do the jobs Americans have been fired from.
We are bankrupting our own nation in the process.
And enact laws now, to change this.
It wasn’t close? 50% to 49% looks pretty close to me!
Mr. Electable, was anything but electable.
In an election cycle when ANY REAL Republican would have won against the horrible record of Obama, the GOP-E chose a Pretend Republican with Mitt Romney.
Their fear and loathing of Social Conservatives have done them, and more importantly, us, in.
The more on the dole, the more zombies in the Democrat army.
As for the foreigners who are working US jobs, they probably would have leaned to Mitt in this contest if they could vote (and most honored the law and didn’t). That is, if they wanted a job to keep being there to work.
It wasn’t about Mitt Romney. The fact of the matter is people don’t see how the debt affects them. Their taxes haven’t gone up and Obama says he is only going to tax the rich. Maybe the best thing that can happen in the long run would be for all the Bush tax cuts to expire. Let people see their paychecks shrink and then maybe they’ll realise this is costing them. If I were the GOP, that would be my compromise. Raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich.
THIS. In spades.
Ya know, I didn’t see a single “get out the vote” freep. There might have been some but I missed it.
The Democrats effectively worked and got their zombies out. It was a fake, a feint, when few attended Democrat rallies, because that’s not what counts in an election.
Ground action counts. Do we have to get Democrat advisers to teach us how to do it?
“Their fear and loathing of Social Conservatives have done them, and more importantly, us, in.”
That “Fear and loathing” is created by an ENEMY MEDIA, that reinforces it at every turn, from TV Shows to Hollywood Movies, to The Daily Show, which is the Number One news source for males under 38.
I love freepers, but they discount the power of the media, especially Social Media, and it’s powerful effect on how, and what, younger people think.
Yep. My tagline.
You sound like a protectionist. Are you referring to illegals? Are you referring to outsourcing? What are you talking about?
This is how things should be:
1. outsourcing good
2. hiring foreigners who are better than Americans good
3. hiring illegals bad
4. foreign trade good
1. Government being reined in, both in size and in the intrusiveness exhibited by Homeland Security, EPA, etc. - forget it now;
2. Energy independence - developing clean coal, drilling for oil here - forget it - waste another Trillion or so on 0bama's half wit schemes on solar with his cronies and gas at $8.00 a gallon;
3. Getting the economy turned around and growing with new jobs and opportunities - forget it - 0bama couldn't run a lemonade stand, so, if we're lucky, the malaise will continue - probably get a lot worse;
4. Government spending reined in - Never happen with 0bama. Those that voted for him voted for the free handouts and the celebrated by making calls on their 0bama phone;
5. Strong defense and foreign policy - Israel is on their own now; our defense will not be able to do much, which is fine with Hussein and his muzzie bros;
6. A solution to the fiscal cliff facing us early next year - 0bama will be on vacation the majority of the time between now and then and "can't be disturbed". Meanwhile Reid and the Weeper of the House will mill around, hold hearings and adjourn. I hope everyone is ready for fiscal shock, the OBAMA DEPRESSION will soon hit;
7. A more united America - under Hussein 0bama, get real!
Since the election I wake up praying that it is all just a bad dream, but it is real and the nightmare hasn't even begun!
The Radical Paulistineans did more HARM, than good, reinforcing the media stereotypes about, “Those CRAZY old, racist Republicans!! You don’t want to be one of THEM, do ya?”
You are right.
I am a protectionist. More-so every single day.
Could you post, as a data point, the numbers that Cruz got in Tuesday in Texas, as compared to Romney on Tuesday in Texas?
Did Cruz (endorsed by everyone, including Paul) run ahead of Romney in the Lone Star State?
I don’t have an opinion on this issue. But I am interested in the data (and will eventually hazard an opinion...).