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...).
ok, so what did johnson get?
mitt actually was about the most friendly republican presidential candidate yet to the idea of state by state policy on marijuana. somehow the paulheads forgot this.
Funny, the Democrats will do that too, but clumsily.
I agree. The MSM has been covering up the true state of the economy to get King O over the finish line. They are in for a rude awakening when the economy stays stagnant and worsens.
Beating the small b bushes would have helped greatly. But the conservatives who didn’t vote in the close-loss battleground states due to ennui are now getting Pandora’s box to thank them for it.
The Untied [sic] States Of America.
>> THIS. In spades.
Yep. There is an Obama for America office not too far from me. Three months or so ago, I saw a guy in 2012 Obama shirt and button in the grocery store at 9:00 at night. It was clear from his appearance, he was just wrapping up a long day. They had crews of workers in the trenches cranking it out months ago micro targeting each area. Obama won our county by a much larger margin than I would have expected. They won in the GOTV, and we need to quickly evolve there. The Romney campaign made massive improvements on the digital side over four years ago, and they did develop a much more advanced microtargeting database. They need to take that and evolve into our side’s version of OFA. The one thing in world I can give credit to the Obama era is that they have taken campaigning to a whole new level using technology and grassroots organization.
That is why they are winning.
I just found this factoid. In Harris County, Texas (that’s the Houston area), Cruz ran far, far ahead of Romney:
“Romney lost the county by 600 votes. So what happened to the rest of our ticket? Ted Cruz won the county by around 18,000 votes totaling 581,197, but there was a drop off from there for the GOP in contested races with Democrats.”
In some respects, Harris County is a typical urban county in that minority politics/urban politics can sometimes cause libs to be elected. 2006 was a huge wipe out of the GOP.
County wide, most Republicans did sort of so-so in Harris County this cycle. And as just noted, Romney actually narrowly lost the county.
But Cruz carried it.
Cruz carries an arguably purple county BIG, while Romney loses it?
What does this tell us?
Caveat: it may only tell us something about Harris County, or about Texas. It may NOT tell us something about the US.
All I know is that for the life of me I can’t fathom that Romney ran behind McCain.
Mitt lost because the Republicans control the House and prevented the Democrats from pushing through their agenda. Same reason Clinton won in 2006.
I wonder if the Mormon factor quietly dissuaded a lot of fundamentalists, too. So they did not vote for anybody for president.
Except that Obama is the Emperor of Executive Orders
But I don’t know what propelled Cruz. Was it his intensity and messaging? Esp as compared to Romney?
Or Hispanic surname?
Or the fact that he hails from Harris County? (He knows a lot of people personally...but not 18,000).
Or none or all of the above? I don’t know. Yet.
He is right
I really don't understand how you can believe that the Paul campaign reinforced racist-Republican stereotypes.
But then again, anything a Republican says or does reinforces Republicans-are-racist stereotypes in the eyes of the media and the left - just Google "Mitt Romney racist" - so even if Paul did, what's your point? How is it different from any other Republican in any other race against Democrat liars?
I honestly don’t think so. Ralph Reed says that evangelicals turned out in record numbers.
That is certainly my personal experience, though I recognie the limits of that.
It definitely was not a landslide
I have been seeing this GOP with the “e” added and have no clue what it means. Help. Thanks.
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.