Surprising! It doesn't add up to a victory, but there are clues in there about how the GOP ought to change.
Here's another nice graphic, showing how groups break down by party. Looking at that, especially the breakdown between people who rate the economy as poor/people who rate the economy as not so good/people who rate the economy as excellent or good, I'd say Romney should have pounded away at how terrible the economy is. Obama got by with his "it's getting better" theme.
November 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
188 comments:
I counted all of those tiny red arrows on the NYT map the day after.
I don't get the panic on the right.
Unmarried women, blacks, hispanics and the non-religious overwhelmingtl supported Obama. Why not just lump them into one big group called "people who always have their hands out looking for free stuff"?
Obama got by with "the economy is getting better" because his voters want so badly to believe it.
Romney DID pound on the economy. This didn't make it so that Obama had to *defend* the economy. He merely had to attack Romney.
Take the "Romney has been surrounded by yes-men all of his life" message. I heard that at my husband's work the other day. The person who said it obviously never thought. How would that work? Is that even reasonable?
It wasn't... is Romney wrong... it was Romney doesn't listen. Appeal to emotion? Absolutely.
People wanted to believe that the non-recovery recovery... the recovery where something we couldn't see was improving even if people were every bit as miserable... was true. Obama just needs more time, poor thing, and they wanted to believe that's all it would take.
Not so surprising when you consider Obama's loss of almost 10 million votes from 2008 to 2012.
Obama got by with "the economy is getting better" because his voters want so badly to believe it.
No, he got away with it because the Press let him. If he'd been a Republican, we would've had stories every day for months on the terrible economy.
"I don't get the panic on the right."
I said the other day (not here) that it seemed to *me* that ever more people were becoming fiscally conservative and becoming more informed that way. I know why people are panicking but I do think that opinion is shifting.
(And freaking about how one or two nut jobs needed to be expelled from the party and then everything would magically be all about the economy and liberal voters would magically start voting fiscal conservative is entirely moronic.)
Obama got by with "the economy is getting better"
No, he got by with a mulligan ... and blaming his predecessor routinely.
It's Bush's fault the economy WAS SO BAD that THIS IS A GOOD AS IT IS now.
I heard that from so many of my Obama-loving friends. That he prevented an even greater depression.
You've heard it here, too.
It's not getting better. The UE went UP the weekend before the election for crying out loud! That should scare the shit out of any incumbent save Obama, who is flanked by the media and those who honestly think he is a Demi-God.
Larry... I think that "the Press" and "his voters" are two sets that nearly exactly overlap, don't you?
I know it's not getting better EMD. But I heard more than one commenter here just the other day claiming that it was. The economy is recovering. It's just the parts that we don't see.
Reid and Obama are on the cusp of economic destruction. They do not care, because the goal of progressive socialist democrats is to remove as much private wealth out of the economy as possible.
Asians
What seemed to work in this campaign was negative ads, but I don't think that negative ads were Romney's style so he didn't want to do them. To do more than Romney did on the economy would have, given the MSM's protection of Obama,required negative ads. The only hope for a GOP candidate in the future is for the MSM to continue to lose its clout and to become irrelevant.
What seemed to work in this campaign was negative ads, but I don't think that negative ads were Romney's style so he didn't want to do them. To do more than Romney did on the economy would have, given the MSM's protection of Obama,required negative ads. The only hope for a GOP candidate in the future is for the MSM to continue to lose its clout and to become irrelevant.
Single people went for Obama 62 to 35
Married people went for Romney 56-42
If Romney had won 40% of Hispanics (as Bush did) it would have let him take only Florida.
The real disappointments were Ohio and VA, which are not heavily immigrant.
Repubs need to take almost all of white working class in order to balance out the SWPL and handout recipients.
To engage with the young and SWPL is difficult because those types don't like to be in a "big tent" with the working class.
Here's where I predicted an Obama second term based on the media selling economic "improvement".
Republicans are so down in the dumps because Obama has been economically disastrous, but his strategy of pitting Americans against each other while the media runs interference worked.
"He cares about people like me"
You can't run a factual, issue-oriented campaign and expect such people to vote for you.
The lesson for both parties is to never nominate a white person again.
It seems to be almost entirely the message people get from campaigns and the media instead of their actual experience.
There is no evidence that the economy is getting better for probably 75 or 80 percent of the population, yet so many voted to let Obama keep trying. Based on his promise to do better/it's turning around/Romney is scary campaign they voted to stay the course.
This gives Republicans a lot of information about voters and how to appeal to them. Is it that people are misinformed about how economics works or that they are easily manipulated? If they are easily manipulated how does the party get to low information voters with their message? The media isn't the way to go because the media is in the tank for Democrats.
Maybe new media can do it in the future as old media fades out.
So why did Romney do so poorly among white working class men? Maybe they saw him as the embodiment of the rich corporate type that ships their jobs overseas and it was too much for them.
If they are easily manipulated how does the party get to low information voters with their message?
What you do is lie and scare the bejesus out of them.
Blah, blah, blah.
The GOP lost because they party is filled with white men who are still living in the early part of the century.
Between women's issues, minorities, gay rights, and other aspects of American life...they just don't give a flying fuck.
It's ALL about lowering taxes on those who make most of the money and leaving everybody else behind.
Anybody who is in need is deemed a "taker."
You lost...and you deserved to lose.
"What you do is lie and scare the bejesus out of them."
-- That's one of the two biggest lessons I learned from this election. First, no really, negative ads work. Slime your opponent. Insinuate he murdered a woman and will ruin their lives, out of a personal hatred for them. Second: No one actually listens to the ideas the candidates say, so don't risk yourself and speak as few ideas as possible.
So unmarried women always have their hand out, is that right Mr Akin?
That's a little extreme. Not to mention completely inaccurate, but right in line with congratulating the Dems for their victory by saying there's more of "them" than "us," them being the takers, and us being the makers. Keep thinking like that and sewing the seeds of future defeats.
Extreme. Inaccurate. Lie. Self-delusion.
Palladian hit it on the head.
Old white guys should not run ever again.
That is why Rubio will be the next Republican nominee. He just needs to vote "present" for the next four years.
The GOP lost because they party is filled with white men who are still living in the early part of the century.
Damn! I forgot to put on my spats today!
Maybe they saw him as the embodiment of the rich corporate type that ships their jobs overseas and it was too much for them.
You could put a Wise Latina Lesbian in the White House, and with this economy, their jobs are still headed overseas.
This IS the early part of the century, isn't it?
Kinda funny to see mostly white reporters, analysts and talking heads tell us that it is difficult to elect a white president today.
When you want to sell a car you put a beautiful girl in the commercial. She had nothing to do with designing, building or developing the car. She is just there to sell it.
What you need to do is have a front man who is somewhat immune to attacks of being a racist. A Republican will be attacked as a traitor to their race or ethicity if they are black or Hispanic(see Herman Cain, Condi, Clarence Thomas)but at least they will have some cover when they have to go negative. And they have to go negative. Going negative wins. And wins big.
Romney didn't have the balls to go negative.
Show me a nice guy and I will show you a loser.
Maybe new media can do it in the future as old media fades out.
This is another straw you guys have got to stop grasping at.
Your new media is never going to take over. It only reaches people who have already decided to join you. The old media is the only way to reach the rest.
This IS the early part of the century, isn't it?
He's talking about 2002. Remember those salad days of free-flowing champagne and floozy flappers whilst the good immigrants died in the mines like the deserved to?
So why did Romney do so poorly among white working class men? Maybe they saw him as the embodiment of the rich corporate type that ships their jobs overseas and it was too much for them.
Of the suggestions I've seen, this one is the most convincing.
But for the GOP to go protectionist would be a betrayal of principles and bad for the economy.
Romney should have offered a Romneyphone. Clearly, that's what the people wanted.
So unmarried women always have their hand out, is that right Mr Akin?
All I know is a thirty year-old woman in a somewhat-prestigious law school raised a stink about having to pay for her birth control.
I will say I liked Romney a lot and we screwed up not electing him. A good and truly decent man who helped more than all of those idiots making "He is a robot" jokes.
The press basically treating Romney as the incumbent for months was bullshit.
Romney should have offered a Romneyphone. Clearly, that's what the people wanted
Romneyphones only come in white.
The lesson for both parties is to never nominate a white person again.
Specially not a white woman ;)
Well, maybe a white married woman.
So Marco Rubio is golden in 2016 right?
Synova 2016!
I mean literally golden, he's not too lily white is he?
Billionaires moved toward Willard. Scroll down to see who got a ROI and who got zilch.
Spoiler alert, con billionaires lost badly lol, but hey, they're billionaires, so not to worry. Like 2008, I gave a modest to Obama and am quite happy w/my investment.
The ad nauseam con whining alone was worth the investment.
Indeed, vote total was depressed on both sides. One wonders how many Rep voters were turned off by Willard's 95% negative campaign ads in the Rep primary ?!?
Why did Romney spend $$$ in PA/MI/MN late in the campaign? All the commercial time slots were already taken in the toss up states and Willard had left over $$$ to waste on states where he had no chance.
Quite the conundrum for the party of Lincoln as the only group they haven't insulted lately is older southern yahoos who keep dwindlin' every (4) years.
>
Althouse, trying unsuccessfully to find a non-existent silver lining a couple days after the Reps got their butts kicked. Too funny, but sadly expected.
Keep hope alive!
Blogger Roberto said...
Blah, blah, blah.
The GOP lost because they party is filled with white men who are still living in the early part of the century.
Between women's issues, minorities, gay rights, and other aspects of American life...they just don't give a flying fuck.
___________________________________
You're right the Democrats are the party of abortion on demand, affirmative action, and single-sex marriage..the things that will make us a paragon among nations.
I'm curious why turnout seems to have been down massively over all.
Is our country really tuning out politics more and more?
Synova and Larry J nail it.
This was an election of the smarts against the stupids.
The media ran interference, but, when the Scranton-Wilkes Barre area is carried by the Demos even though the UMW came out against him, you know people aren't thinking.
Writ Small said...
Here's where I predicted an Obama second term based on the media selling economic "improvement".
Republicans are so down in the dumps because Obama has been economically disastrous, but his strategy of pitting Americans against each other while the media runs interference worked.
The Demos have been doing it since Roosevelt.
Anecdotal evidence I admit is the single woman in my office drives a Mercedes but was worried that she could not get free birth control at Planned Parenthood. The other single woman [a chain smoker] also was worried about that. And both are chronically latecomers to work. In fact, the four Obama supporters in my office are all chronically late to work [I am not making this up].
shiloh said...
Billionaires moved toward Willard. Scroll down to see who got a ROI and who got zilch.
Try again. 8 of the 10 richest counties in the country went for Zero.
It's ALL about lowering taxes on those who make most of the money and leaving everybody else behind.
Anybody who is in need is deemed a "taker."
How much money do you need? And where are you going to get it? It seems to me you guys are spending a lot of money right now. The recent report that there is $60K in federal and state welfare spending per household in poverty ought to be a clue. How much more do you need?
And what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to raise up black and hispanic minority households to the same level as white and asian minority households, are are you simply trying to bring down the white and asian minority households?
If the former, is what you are doing working? Since, as you point out, you have not been able to get money out of the wealthy, you are getting it from the middle class.
How much should the middle class be forced to pay for your failed programs? And when do you give up on your programs when they continue to fail?
"I'm curious why turnout seems to have been down massively over all."
Again, ad nauseam negative campaign ads on both sides, especially Reps who had wayyy too much $$$ which = over saturation.
And the obvious, Willard inspired no one. Reps/cons were voting against Obama, not for Romney.
As always, presidential politics is not that complicated as the incumbent wartime C-in-C has a huge advantage.
Willard didn't mention the troops/military in his acceptance speech. Almost beyond comprehension if you give Romney's campaign managers any credit for critical thinking.
As always, Romney was the total discombobulated package.
You could put a Wise Latina Lesbian in the White House, and with this economy, their jobs are still headed overseas.
And what exactly is the Republican or Romney's solution to this problem.
Obama got by with "the economy is getting better" because his voters want so badly to believe it.
Yeah, the fact that anybody thinks this economy is 'excellent or good' is pretty insane. How do you counter people like that???
Romney did mention the military campaigns in his speech, he also gave a speech directly to them earlier that week at an event Obama skipped out on.
It's like basic narratives got built up that ignore facts and no one bothered to tell people the media was lying to them.
Also: I have a sneaking suspicion Obama spent more than Romney on negative ads.
What do you know about the Sailer strategy?
That and the marriage gap.
I'm thinking that the "economy is getting better, stick with us" will be a much tougher sell for Democrats in 2014 and 2016. The just announced layoffs at Boeing are just the initial bell. "Bush" and "not enough time yet" won't be viable excuses.
Except I'm not sure the 2008 election is the best mean to use for this metric, because everything shifted farther to the left than normal as a result of the feel-good candidacy that was Barrack Obama. I'm thinking the better means would have been an average from the last three Presidential election or something like that.
The main hope for the Republicans is that Obama will overstep. He will you know. He will push his world view to the point where it could facture his coalition. They have to get paid. And they have different viewpoints and prices so paying them off won't be so easy.
For example he will champion amnesty and immigration "reform." That might not set so well with african-americans who feel that the illegal's get their jobs. They will squabble and fight over the spoils. We just need to get out of the way and let them devour each other.
When the gays activists demand that all religious institutions perform marriage ceremonies in their houses of worship or lose their tax status some of the black churches might balk. And balk in a significant way as they did in California when they passed the referendum. When activism threatens the livelihood of pastors.....well it won't be pretty.
When government regulation by the EPA gives us $10 a gallon gas the divorced suburban mom who has to feel her SUV might wake up and smell the gasoline. Her ex-husband who is a Republican can just refuse to pay for it.
There are a lot of fault lines in the Democratic coalition. Republicans only need to learn how to lie and deny reality and cover up our aims and spin with jokes and fluff and put an amiable front man to win.
An amiable ethnic front man. You know. Cedric the Entertainer. Or George Lopez. Is Jose Jimenez still alive?
Substance and seriousness is so last century. Fuck the budget. The deficit? That's bullshit. Who cares?
We need someone who can go on Letterman and yuk it up. Ignore the mainstream media. Just shut them down. Run a comedian. Or an actor. Somebody who can lie as convincingly as Clinton and still be loved by the "soap opera" audience as rh says all the time.
That's the ticket.
Looks more and more like a significant amount of anti-Morman bigotry. If 1.5% more of the vote had gone for Romney, he would have won the popular vote. Given liberals/progressives hatred of religioin in general and the extreme conservative Christian anti-Mormonism, it's easy to see this making the difference more than Romney not harping on the economy enough.
shiloh said...
"I'm curious why turnout seems to have been down massively over all."
Again, ad nauseam negative campaign ads on both sides, especially Reps who had wayyy too much $$$ which = over saturation.
But He's the Messiah of the People.
Isn't he?
Oh, and regarding your ROI, enjoy the ride to financial oblivion along with the rest of us.
Not to mention your reserved space on the cattle car to Treblinka-on-the-Colorado.
"Also: I have a sneaking suspicion Obama spent more than Romney on negative ads."
Even if true, which it isn't, Obama easily defeated Romney.
This election is looking eerily like 2004, go figure!
btw, Obama's margin is about the same as 2004, whereas Bush got 286 electoral votes and Obama will get 332.
hmm, does Obama have political capital? lol
Also, the irony of 9/11 fear/hate/misinformation and cheney/bush misbegotten Iraq War putting Bush over the top in 2004.
ok, ok, the the anti-gay marriage hate issue being put on the ballot in (8) states, including Ohio and Kerry being a "less than stellar" opponent helped also.
I digress.
But eight years of cheney/bush ineptitude/incompetence begot (8) years of Obama so it's all good! :)
And our front man doesn't even have to really believe in anything.
He could just enjoy the perks of office. You know. Golfing. Vacations. Big motorcades. All that cool stuff.
His wife can Jet set around and spend all kinds of dough on vacations and trips and parties and stuff.
He can just go on Jay Leno and the View and let the Tri-lateral Commission run things behind the scenes.
Do you think we can get Will Smith to pretend to be a Republican?
The only way the Republicans can run and win with a white guy is if he is gay.
Maybe we can run John Travolta. He can lie pretty convincingly and people still love him. He even played Bill Clinton in a movie!
"extreme conservative Christian anti-Mormonism"
You could take the extreme out and still be right. I know a fair number of thoughtful and far from extreme Christians who questioned whether it was right to vote for a Mormon. I think this was a decisive issue for depressing the Evangelical vote.
Is any one else willing to blame Ryan. I do. He was a mini-Romney. Businessy, wonky, good with numbers, only he didn't broaden the appeal nor provide a distinct personality in the team. He's not a campaigner.
Romney needed a campaigner who could have brought some distinction and flair to the ticket. Instead, he picked the guy who he would have hired for his business team. Which would have been a good team to lead, but wasn't the team to win.
All you need to know about this election is - Jesse Jackson Jr. WON FROM THE NUTHOUSE.
That's where we are.
You can go further and look at Elizabeth Warren's many lies, and there are countless more. dems will vote for anything D, no matter how filthy disgusting, sick or incompetent. Period.
Partisanship will be the death of this nation, probably already is.
And yet we are forced into partisan roles now - as the republicans MUST hold the line on spending, on bog v small govt, and so much more. HOLD!
Yeah Travolta would be a great candidate.
I mean he could get tons of blow jobs in the oval office.
Just from dudes.
He can even fly Air Force one himself when he jets off on vacation.
And it is not like he has a weird religion like being a Mormon or something.
Yeah. Vinny Barbarino for President!
erggh, typos
Shiloh. The president won 8 of the 10 richest zip codes.
Unless you refer to the progressive definition of millionairesandbillionaires as those with incomes over 200k per annum.
Re: Willard being a Mormon, it will be interesting to see if 2012 exit polls show core evangelical conservative support was down as compared to 2008.
Yes Virginia, it's true, McCain got more support than Romney. Heard yesterday the military/veteran vote in VA was split 50/50.
Rose - it won't happen. The MSM will demonize the GOP House 24/7 until they crack and give Baracky everything he wants. It's like having a Democrat House that all you had to do is apply a little pressure and *boom*.
Watch for the demonization machine to go into overdrive on Boehner starting next week. Also look for another attempt to recall Walker and all Republican governors.
What do wealthy districts/zip codes have to do with Billionaire donations to Reps? Rhetorical.
If we have to do negative ads, that might work.
Their negative ads work because they involve some element of truth. Look it's not popular to advocate for self reliance, responsibility and morals.
shiloh said...
But eight years of cheney/bush ineptitude/incompetence begot (8) years of Obama so it's all good! :)
Food prices up 6%
Gas doubled.
Real unemployment at 23%
Black unemployment double the national average.
Al Qaeda flag flying over our embassies.
3 times the number of dead in A-stan
People still waiting on FEMA.
Fed spending at 103% of GDP
Which is growing at 1.7%
And the death panels kick in a year from now.
Oh, yeah, it's just great.
And what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to raise up black and hispanic minority households to the same level as white and asian minority households, are are you simply trying to bring down the white and asian minority households?
Seems I recall one of the candidates saying that voting was the "best revenge". Now, who was that again?
Someone tell Althouse #1 doting, trained seal the election is over. TIA
shiloh said...
What do wealthy districts/zip codes have to do with Billionaire donations to Reps? Rhetorical.
No, obfuscating.
Of course, the little weasel (who hid out the month Romney was winning) thinks billionaires live in the ghetto.
The negative ads have to aimed at the fault lines in the Democratic coalition. There are plenty.
"If President Obama passes immigration reform they you will never get a construction job because those Mexican dudes will work for a lot less than you will. Do want that Jamal?"
Envy and greed are what wins. It is what won this time. Let's use that to get what we want.
First up. Legalize drugs.
shiloh said...
Someone tell Althouse #1 doting, trained seal the election is over. TIA
Another of those mini-strokes kicking in?
Well, that explains a lot.
And your boy owns it all now.
Anybody who is in need is deemed a "taker."
I want to address this because Synova and I had a conversation a while back about ‘takers’. Being a taker has nothing to do about whether you are currently in need or not. It is an attitude.
Everyone is in need of something at one point or another in their lives. The question to me is, are you grateful to people when they help you out or do you take it as your due and just try to get more? Do you give back?
People who are having a rough year are not takers. There are plenty of people have to be persuaded to take help even when they need it. These people are in need. When they get back on their feet, they will ask you for nothing or if possible try to give you something in return. A taker will only take, never give.
AA - "but there are clues in there about how the GOP ought to change."
So is this about winning or is this about principles we believe in?
Obama LOST 8 million voters. Romney only lost 3 million voters. Romney just never made the voters understand how badly Obama's policies were hurting the economy. Maybe he was the wrong messenger, I don't know, but its clear that 4 years of blaming Bush worked. America let Obama off the hook.
I don't know if people just have lower expectations for him for but Obama's message that there's nothing an dumbfuck like him can do to improve the economy clearly paid off.
The media is co-conspirator here. It's well-documented that they treated a much worse economic picture differently under Obama than they did Bush. Remember the tragedy of $2/gallon gasoline? Remember the horror when the unemployment rate shifted from 5.4% to 5.5%? Romney hammered Obama on the economy and the media responded by hammering Romney.
Now you might say that we have to be grown ups.Do the right thing. Be responsible.
Why?
Give them enough rope. Hunker down.
If they want jump off that bridge then let them.
Legalize drugs. Let them get addictged and die. Who cares?
Give amnesty. Let all the illegals come out of the shadows. They aren't going to take your job. They are going to fight with the other members in the Democratic coaltion. Let them be crabs in a bucket.
Divide and conquer. Opt out of the discourse. They will destroy themselves in their greed and sloth. Just as it every was.
New York said...
So why did Romney do so poorly among white working class men? Maybe they saw him as the embodiment of the rich corporate type that ships their jobs overseas and it was too much for them.
Of the suggestions I've seen, this one is the most convincing.
But for the GOP to go protectionist would be a betrayal of principles and bad for the economy.
This seems right, and it's why we're on a permanent downward slide. The way to win elections is to agree to implement policies bad for the country.
Sometimes it has to bottom out before it can get better.
And we are on the express lane to the bottom.
Ann said: "Looking at that, especially the breakdown between people who rate the economy as poor/people who rate the economy as not so good/people who rate the economy as excellent or good, I'd say Romney should have pounded away at how terrible the economy is."
I live in Ohio. Believe me, Romney and Republican Super PACs relentlessly pounded the airwaves and my mailbox on the economy. It was so pervasive I'm relieved to have back hokey local used car commercials.
What you're missing, Ann, is that the national economic numbers may not be as important as the local/state numbers. Yes, the national unemployment rate is 7.9%. Know what it is in Ohio? 6%. Virginia? 5.9%. Central OH, where I live? 5.7%.
You're quite right that people vote their pocketbook and economics. But that's a hard sell when YOUR economic & financial conditions are better than what Romney kept hammering Obama on(national UE rate, # jobs lost, etc.). I suggest that cognitive dissonance probably turned some undecideds or soft Obama supporters away from Romney's overall message.
Because of changing demographics and Obama's highly tuned unequaled, in the annals of American history, GOTV political machine, Willard never had a realistic chance.
ie the election was never close. But Althouse did have a lot of delusional dreamers w/their laughable predictions sayin' Willard would win in a landslide.
Again, (4) years from now when Althouse again references Rasmussen/Gallup totally skewed presidential polls hopefully even her con lemmings will laugh at her.
>
turdblossom, Dick Morris, George Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Carlson, Fred Barnes, Peggy "totally braindead" Noonan, et al hysterical con "pundits."
Oops!
ok, ok, a special shout out to Michael Barone. Bwahaha !!!
btw, do cons actually read these fools? Rhetorical.
>
This is great news ... for John McCain!
blessings
shiloh said...
Because of changing demographics and Obama's highly tuned unequaled, in the annals of American history, GOTV political machine, Willard never had a realistic chance.
Which, of course, is why the little weasel hid out from 10/4 until OH went sour on 11/6.
As for changing demographics, he must mean the smarts voted Republican, as always.
People like him love Dictator Zero.
Yeah, it's all good.
(hmmm, market's down again)
And George I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, Pawlenty and Daniels. Will is a total frickin' idiot!
ok, ok, he was right as Obama was re-elected lol.
Baron Zemo said...
Sometimes it has to bottom out before it can get better.
And we are on the express lane to the bottom.
My thoughts, exactly.
Unfortunately, bottom is spelled Weimar Republic.
Buddence Bunny said...
Ann said: "Looking at that, especially the breakdown between people who rate the economy as poor/people who rate the economy as not so good/people who rate the economy as excellent or good, I'd say Romney should have pounded away at how terrible the economy is."
I live in Ohio. Believe me, Romney and Republican Super PACs relentlessly pounded the airwaves and my mailbox on the economy. It was so pervasive I'm relieved to have back hokey local used car commercials.
What you're missing, Ann, is that the national economic numbers may not be as important as the local/state numbers. Yes, the national unemployment rate is 7.9%. Know what it is in Ohio? 6%. Virginia? 5.9%. Central OH, where I live? 5.7%.
You're quite right that people vote their pocketbook and economics. But that's a hard sell when YOUR economic & financial conditions are better than what Romney kept hammering Obama on(national UE rate, # jobs lost, etc.). I suggest that cognitive dissonance probably turned some undecideds or soft Obama supporters away from Romney's overall message.
Can't buy it.
If that were the case, NE OH wouldn't have been wall-to-wall Romney signs.
Things aren't that great in OH, although Kasich has done a great job.
shiloh said...
And George I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, Pawlenty and Daniels. Will is a total frickin' idiot!
ok, ok, he was right as Obama was re-elected lol.
Then the little weasel needs to tell us why he hid out for a month.
Secret Squirrel mission for DEVGRU?
...bottom is spelled Weimar Republic.
I lean much more toward the "Argentina, 1946" model for our particular bottom.
But then I've always been a sunny optimist.
Althouse, please tell your #1 doting, trained seal that elections are about one thing and one thing only. Winners and losers. The people have spoken.
Period, end of story!
Hey the Weimar Republic wasn't all bad.
We got Marlene Deitrich singing in a top hat and panties.
You know I bet that is what rich guys like Romney wear when they want to get funky.
Top hat and panties.
And a monocle.
Repubs need to take almost all of white working class in order to balance out the SWPL and handout recipients.
But we aren't allowed to talk about the mooches. It's racist.
shiloh said...
Althouse, please tell your #1 doting, trained seal that elections are about one thing and one thing only. Winners and losers. The people have spoken.
Period, end of story!
No, you need to tell us why you were so afraid to come here when everybody said the Romster was winning.
And, speaking of losers, get ready for a lot of that the next 4 years. Your boy couldn't run on his record, and things are only gonna get lots worse.
Can't wait for the fiscal cliff.
And sequestration.
And inflation.
And all the businesses going belly up because of the EPA. And tax hikes. And ObamaTax.
Yes, it's all going to be soooo goood.
(hmmm, market's still down)
@Palladian: The lesson for both parties is to never nominate a white person again.
Strike "person"
Replace "male"
The Republican Party as presently constituted is essentially embarrassed by conservatism. Which is why it never sells conservatism energetically or unapologetically. Only a takeover by Tea Party Republicans will save the party from extinction.
Paddy O said:
Is any one else willing to blame Ryan. I do. He was a mini-Romney. Businessy, wonky, good with numbers, only he didn't broaden the appeal nor provide a distinct personality in the team. He's not a campaigner.
I agree that Ryan is not a "campaigner," in the sense that campaigns currently are very low on substance. Ryan is clearly not used to "working" the large crowds, he is more comfortable in the town-hall meetings, using all of his charts, etc. So to the extent that you're right, it says more about campaigns and the American people than it does about Ryan.
As for blaming him, I can't agree. Romney got his first "bounce" after choosing Ryan. Ryan brought some substance and budget credibility and knowledge to the ticket. He did as much as any VP candidate could.
I don't blame Romney either, I think he did a good job. The one thing that is inarguable is that he worked his rear end off. He left nothing out there. If I have one criticism, it's over reliance on the guy who ran his campaign. I say this in hindsight, but he doesn't seem all that astute.
Obama got by with his "it's getting better" theme
Yes, like I've been saying -- Romney actually gave Obama support whenever he referred to the economy as being in recovery, even if Romney incompetently wanted to argue that it was a weak "recovery."
Again, what should have been the number one rallying cry -- "OBAMA MADE THINGS WORSE" -- was never heard once from the Romney camp.
The auto bailout, a disastrous and expensive bit of industrial policy that should never be repeated, turned out to be a political masterstroke. The auto bailout enabled Obama to secure narrow victories in states that, under the economic circumstances, would have been very winnable for Romney, no matter what unmarried women and minorities thought.
After showering the Midwest with public money, all Obama had to do to clinch it was spend campaign money demonizing Romney.
Romney got a higher proportion of the Evangelical vote than did McCain.
Don't blame non-existent bigotry from the religious right on Romney's inability to get people to vote for him.
"And sequestration."
-- It's a shame Boeing waited to announce their layoffs until after the election. Until I saw that, I honestly thought it would not happen. I was wrong there too; if we don't get something fixed by Thanksgiving, I see that as a real thing that is going to hurt VA a lot.
This may be one of the most informative exit poll findings of them all.
If Romney had been able to come anywhere close to matching Obama on the "cares about people like me" dimension, he'd have won handily.
Congratulations, Dems. You successfully smeared a decent, honorable man in order to hold on to power.
"Obama LOST 8 million voters. Romney only lost 3 million voters. "
Oh... Someone's been listening to Limbaugh this morning. He just said that very thing 30 minutes ago..... PARROT!!!!
More disappointing to me than Obama winning (that’s how the election turned out, so he won, life goes on), is that Romney pulled in 1 million less votes than McCain did!!! There was Obama fatigue, since regardless of the extreme negative ads that got his base out, 6 million of his voters from 2008 stayed home or did not vote for him.
All we had to do was get the 62 million votes that Bush had in 2004 and Romney would have won. As others have mentioned on this thread, I do believe that we had a huge number of very right wing people that did not vote for Romney because he was not a "true conservative" and was a moderate or liberal Rhino. The other large non-voter block was those evangelicals that said they would not vote for a non-Christian, and definitely not for a Mormon.
So they stay home or don't vote for anyone for president, and they get Obama for another four years. Funny thing, I bet a large number of the "I won't vote for a Mormon" probably believe that Obama is secretly a Muslim (you know, born in Kenya, wears some secret Muslim ring, and so on).
Chip S: I don't get that, at all. Obama dithered during the BP Oil Spill; he barely went out of his way to help with Sandy and the disasters like the wild fires.
Romney, literally, closed up shop for a few days while running Bain to find a missing girl. The only candidate who has shown willingness to sacrifice and risk things to help people was Romney; yet he's -still- viewed as less compassionate by a wide margin? I just don't get it.
Romney got a higher proportion of the Evangelical vote than did McCain.
Yes. A higher proportion of a lower total. I'd say their turnout was no greater than 2008, which is disappointing given (1) this was supposedly a "walk over burning coals to vote" election for cons and (2) they got the abortion plank they wanted that was used to beat Romney up with.
Don't get me wrong; evidence like this suggests that the turnout problem wasn't w/ evangelicals, so I'm not pressing that point now. But there's no evidence that they turned out in greater numbers than previously, which was pretty much what I think Repubs were hoping for.
"Congratulations, Dems. You successfully smeared a decent, honorable man in order to hold on to power."
Willard had 36% job approval when he left office in MA w/no chance for re-election. Repeating: no chnace for re-election. His hand picked "successor" Kerry Healey, who was one of Romney's campaign "advisers" lost to Deval Patrick by (20) pts.
As governor Romney vetoed 800 bills of which 707 were ((( overridden ))) by the state legislature. So much for reaching across the aisle in the spirit of bi-partisanship!
Romney was a failure in his one attempt at governing.
>
Again, the election is over so feel free to stop whining at anytime ... or not!
blessings
If Romney had been able to come anywhere close to matching Obama on the "cares about people like me" dimension, he'd have won handily.
Congratulations, Dems. You successfully smeared a decent, honorable man in order to hold on to power
It's been a four year Smearapalooza from your crowd. It just didn't work.
If only Romney had been more liked, and got more votes from women, Jews, Catholics, blacks, asians, and latinos, he would have won easily!
I don't know what to think, except that we are doomed.
One thing I do know, the Democrats pretty much carried the day by getting urban areas to vote for them. The rest of us are pretty much ruled by the big cities now.
Single women went 68% Democrat. That wouldn't have happened if Michele Bachmann had been the Republican candidate.
Matthew,I just think that shows the power of the Obama ads that ran in swing states while Romney was still competing in the primaries.
The good news is that those voters weren't a huge share of the electorate. The bad news is that they break almost totally Dem.
It's been a four year Smearapalooza from your crowd.
Yes, we cons are horrible that way. Smearing poor Obama by discussing his actual performance in office.
Our candidate didn't infer that the other candidate murdered a woman with cancer.
How do you "murder" someone with cancer?
Chip S. said...
This may be one of the most informative exit poll findings of them all.
If Romney had been able to come anywhere close to matching Obama on the "cares about people like me" dimension, he'd have won handily..
Yeah, on the one hand, we have a guy who paid for milk out of his own pocket for a VA hospital and who went down to Gotham to look for a missing girl.
On the other, we have somebody who's livin' large off the taxpayer on Waygu steak and cared enough about people to condemn 4 men to death and then go back to bed.
As I say, this was the smarts against the stupids.
shiloh said...
Congratulations, Dems. You successfully smeared a decent, honorable man in order to hold on to power.
Willard had 36% job approval when he left office in MA w/no chance for re-election. Repeating: no chnace for re-election. His hand picked "successor" Kerry Healey, who was one of Romney's campaign "advisers" lost to Deval Patrick by (20) pts.
As governor Romney vetoed 800 bills of which 707 were ((( overridden ))) by the state legislature. So much for reaching across the aisle in the spirit of bi-partisanship!
Romney was a failure in his one attempt at governing.
Not even close.
He balanaced MA's budget.
Implemented Romneycare without raising taxes.
Improved schools dramatically.
But then the Massholes also prefer a phony Indian as their Senator.
BTW, where were you 10/5 - 11/5?
Hatman's cabana boy?
"infer"
Over-the-top ad nauseam con whining notwithstanding, imply, not infer.
blessings
"Romney should have pounded away at how terrible the economy is."
He did; it didn't work.
I don't know that the economy really was the major issue, regardless of what's being reported in exit polls. For a variety of reasons, voters simply felt more comfortable voting for Obama, even though they had no credible evidence whatsoever that the next four years would be any different from the last four. Romney unveiled the pretense in that first debate, but Obama's adequate performance in the next two gave voters just enough justification for their ingrained bias.
Really too bad. Romney seemed the right guy at the right time. I think he had the potential to be a terrific president.
Again, Althouse #1 doting, trained seal, the election is over!
C'mon, where were you hiding out?
Barry's bathhouse boy in Chi-town?
Hillary's stand-in for Huma?
PS No, it's just beginning.
We have 4 years to impeach the bastard.
And so much material.
And then we have Joe declared non compos mentis.
btw, Althouse #1 doting, trained seal, Obama easily won PA and OH, thanx little buddy.
And Willard lost (4) of his "home" states ie NH, MA, MI and CA. Gotta be a record lol.
BB: "Yes, the national unemployment rate is 7.9%. Know what it is in Ohio? 6%. Virginia? 5.9%. Central OH, where I live? 5.7%."
edutcher: "Can't buy it. If that were the case, NE OH wouldn't have been wall-to-wall Romney signs."
LOL. In other words, you don't believe the hard statewide data because of your single instance of anecdotal evidence. And your evidence isn't even that good -- NE OH (Cuyahoga Co. specifically) went for Obama 2 to 1.
How does the sand taste in the dune where your head is buried?
Obviously Althouse #1 doting, trained seal missed me exponentially. Did he have any withdrawal symtoms while I was away enjoying life? Rhetorical.
What is Althouse little puppy dog gonna do when if I leave permanently?
Obamacare?
Indeed, psychiatric care is available! :) Praise the lord!
garage mahal limps:
It's been a four year Smearapalooza from your crowd. It just didn't work.
Unfortunately, and as wrong as it is, it does work. H8 years of smearing Bush got Obama back in for four more.
Sorry, sweetie, I'm all over NE OH and there was plenty of Romney support in Summit, Portage, Geauga, Stark, and Cuyahoga counties.
How 'bout another reason, like voting machines that registered Obama when you touched Romney (and Diebold is building a nice big annex to their facility down in Canton)?
Or guys trying to intimdate people at the polls?
No, that could have nothing to do with it.
shiloh said...
btw, Althouse #1 doting, trained seal, Obama easily won PA and OH, thanx little buddy.
And Willard lost (4) of his "home" states ie NH, MA, MI and CA. Gotta be a record lol.
Easy if you're the ACORN crowd.
So, where were you 10/5 - 11/5?
Waxing Axelrod's mustache?
Taking Kaopectate intravenously so you'd stop losing your sphincters thinking how Romney was winning?
Complimenting Moochelle on how loved she is and what great fashion sense she has?
You can tell us. We won't laugh.
Much.
H8 years of smearing Bush got Obama back in for four more.
Yea I'm sure that's it.
Did anyone actually -see- one of those voting machines change their vote? I remember the 2004 cries of vote fraud when Bush won; they were nonsense then. You need hard proof of fraud to even raise that flag because it is going to be a divisive exchange. I believe there is some level of fraud at local levels (and anywhere where you have machine politics from either side with lots to lose.)
But, I want some hard proof before we say that millions of Romney votes just disappeared.
Romney, literally, closed up shop for a few days while running Bain to find a missing girl. The only candidate who has shown willingness to sacrifice and risk things to help people was Romney; yet he's -still- viewed as less compassionate by a wide margin? I just don't get it.
The problem is that nobody knows that, except people on the internet.
I think Romeny, being a decent guy, didn't want to brag on himself in ads. He obviously needed to, if a bunch of people were all 'you don't care about me personally'.
Or maybe we need a pac in the future to say every nice thing the republican candidate did or said in their life that shows they care about real people. The media will clearly never do it. "Republicans care about people. Here are some examples."
Or maybe we need to call those "I'm a Mormon" people and start making ads.
"Or maybe we need a pac in the future to say every nice thing the republican candidate did or said in their life that shows they care about real people."
-- In forums and the like, I was saying that there -should- be someone running those sort of ads for Romney. Especially after the convention when it clearly was pulling teeth to get him to toot his own horn.
Hell, if I were rich, I'd start the PAC myself. Because, frankly, those are the sorts of ads that we need.
"The lesson for both parties is to never nominate a white person again."
Really? Is that where we are, now? Cultural tribalism with the largest tribe excluded?
So, once again, the parties will identify a candidate with the most boxes checked and push him forward regardless of his readiness to lead.
That's no better than the familial nepotism we continue to suffer through.
BTW, did anyone bother to tell Crack that he can come back now? He won. He successfully vilified a decent man.
"Your new media is never going to take over. It only reaches people who have already decided to join you. The old media is the only way to reach the rest."
This is true. The GOP needs to be much more aggressive in their approach to the old media. They're not professionals anymore and they don't care one tiny bit about the truth. They're just operatives for the Democratic party, so stop being saps and treat them as such.
And do it now. Before they agitate for speech codes and cement their de-facto status as the propaganda arm of the State.
Single women went 68% Democrat. That wouldn't have happened if Michele Bachmann had been the Republican candidate.
You're right. It would have doubled to 136%.
Surprisingly the electorate shrunk this election . Despite this so called surge in women and blacks, Obama actually got less blacks and women voting for him. In fact he is the first president in history to get fewer votes during his reelection than previously.
That does not in fact suggest that the dems are taking over demographically or otherwise.
Obama was able to maintain the support of about 92% of his previous voters. But there was no growing electorate.
Surprisingly , or maybe not, Romney got fewer votes than McCain.
What does this say about the future?
And what exactly is the Republican or Romney's solution to this problem.
And what exactly is the Democrat or Obama's solution to this problem?
"Single women went 68% Democrat. That wouldn't have happened if Michele Bachmann had been the Republican candidate."
11/8/12 12:27 PM
Oh. Dear. God.
Bwahahahahahaha!
Single people went for Obama 62 to 35
Married people went for Romney 56-42
Isn't this pretty good evidence that liberals are lying about wanting to legalize same sex marriage rights?
I hope Obama uses his new political capital to move them even further in that direction.
If we listen to the gloaters we will believe the way for Republicans to win is to be Democrats.
That's not winning.
"Roberto said...
Blah, blah, blah.
The GOP lost because they party is filled with white men who are still living in the early part of the century.
Between women's issues, minorities, gay rights, and other aspects of American life...they just don't give a flying fuck.
It's ALL about lowering taxes on those who make most of the money and leaving everybody else behind.
Anybody who is in need is deemed a "taker."
You lost...and you deserved to lose."
Is it losing to be right and not popular. I guess so, but it's going to be cold comfort to win and be so wrong that the bottom falls out of the economy. That will be a hugely unpopular event.
I think we ought to get rid of early voting altogether.
Early voting may have suppressed turnout on both sides. The media kept showing long lines at early voting locations and the media kept trying to guess who was "winning" the early vote.
This may have kept many people home on election day. They didn't want to deal with long lines (and how many of them would actually be there? The media only reported on the long lines - they didn't report on the many (I'm sure) locations without long lines. Just as we hear about plane crashes but not the successful landings that most make.
With the guesses as to who was "winning" the early vote, some people may have decided it was over already and didn't go vote.
Forget Rubio 2016 or ever. According to Nov06 standards, he'd lose to EWarren, D-MA, for Prez.
Right now, any RCon would lose.
Oh my, oh my, what if the economic Armageddon never happens? What ever will you do?
The GOP could run a ticket of Cain/Rubio and it would make no difference. The leftists are brainwashed:
GOP = evil, racist, uterus-contorlling, gay-hating bigots who hate poor people.
That's that.
"to tell Crack that he can come back now?"
There are many Althouse posters who are not totally addicted to this blog like her core, die hard con lemmings. And they come and go as they please ...
Shocking!
If economic Armegadden doesn't happen I will be very happy and I'll vote Republican.
If it happens I, and everyone else, will be very unhappy and maybe even worse than unhappy and who anyone votes for will either be the last thing on our minds or we'll be involved in a much different kind of political activity than voting.
When you were on a budget and your kids wanted to use all the money for play toys and candy did you get them those things and not pay the bills because getting them things was more popular?
The media only reported on the long lines
Throughout the day, I kept hearing on the news about all of this "heavy voting." I knew it was nonsense -- they say that every election and the final numbers always show turnout was moderate at best.
However, with such low numbers, that does detract from the claim that there is this need to have multi-week voting periods.
This may have kept many people home on election day. They didn't want to deal with long lines
RE: Early voting. I decided years ago that it's quicker to just go to my polling location on election day at a non standard time. I generally go right before lunch and zip in and out.
I was weirded out by the emphasis on early voting...it kind of felt like they were trying to call the race early. It's possible that would depress turnout.
Actually saw an interesting thing today mentioned byRivh Lowery. The main problem for repubs was actually the lack of turnout by whites. This is not to say that repubs shouldn't make inroads into the Hispanic or black community. But rather, repbublicana couldn't adequately get out the vote. 10
Million fewer white voted in this election then during the last election, and Romney earned fewer votes than McCain.
(Of course Obama earned fewer votes than last time as well.
Far from saying that Obama grew a coalition his coalition actually shrunk. Which suggests that changing demographic is not the issue, but rather, fewer voters.
It's incumbency. Obama maintained about 92% of his base who actually got out the vote. And Romney didnt have as good a ground game, nor the incumbency advantage.
to Shiloh;
I find your glib "blessings" very offensive.
What's more is that Urkel lost 10 million or so votes and still won. That implies that a lot of republicans/conservatives didn't vote.
What's more is that Urkel lost 10 million or so votes and still won. That implies that a lot of republicans/conservatives didn't vote.
Evangelicals stayed home because they couldn't vote for a Mormon. If the GOP had nominated Santorum, then the Evangelicals would have turned out in record numbers but the independents would not have voted. So in the end, the GOP does not have the ability to assemble a winning coalition anymore.
The answer is the Reform Party(again). We need a political party that is pro-secular, pro-capitalism, non-interference in people's lives(sex, drugs) and for strong national defense. I guarantee such a party would win the Presidency by 2020. There are enough of us that will never ever for GOP again.
I seem to recall Romney DID talk about the economy here and there. /sarcasm What a dunce.
People who don't realize the leftist brainwashing through the media and especially the schools to paint Republicans as evil, stupid, selfish, sexually repressed, sub human monsters has turn 50% of Americans into unredeemable hate filled bigots can't understand how totally fucked this country is.
Well maybe not 50%. Yet.
As someone who works with liberals and minorities a lot what I see is the same level of bigotry that the Nazis had toward the Jews, and I'm not exaggerating.
As someone who works with liberals and minorities a lot what I see is the same level of bigotry that the Nazis had toward the Jews, and I'm not exaggerating.
How do you get through the day working in that shit.
Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US
And his margin of victory in all eight counties was greater than that of the national vote, in which Obama was leading by 50 percent to 48 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting.
The 10 richest counties accounted for 1,337,700 votes, or about 1.1 percent of the national popular vote.
In the richest, Massachusetts' Nantucket County, where average annual household income is over $137,000, Obama won by 63 percent to Romney's 36 percent with all precincts reporting. The richest county in Romney's home state is also where, just prior to accepting the Republican nomination, the former Massachusetts governor held a $75,000-per-person dinner fundraiser.
In none of the richest counties was the margin of victory wider than in California's Marin County, just north of San Francisco, where the president won by 74 percent to 23 percent, with all precincts reporting. In Marin, the average annual household income is $128,544.
--Oh my, oh my, what if the economic Armageddon never happens? What ever will you do?---
20th Century says otherwise.
Real-time Wester Liberal Europe is happening now.
China's not as stable as some think.
So, Inga, since you're an expert, why will it work this time when it hasn't for 100 years? Since we don't have replicators yet which could make things out of thin air.....
Having energy prices necessarily skyrocket will not help. Food costs will rise, but that will help control obesity.
Nor the billions the EPA is about to unleash.
Yale FSA holders just got their 1st tax increase.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected
Greenhouse Gas Regulations:
Premised upon farcically flawed climate alarm conclusions pitched by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which were even disavowed by EPA’s own internal review of the matter, the agency is proposing the first source-specific emissions standards for new power plants which are so strict they will virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation. While EPA has punted on standards for existing power plants as well as refineries — standards which will further drive up electricity and gasoline prices, once these regulations are in place, we can expect the agency to proceed under auspices of its Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the American economy is constrained by strict bureaucratic permitting requirements. These rules are projected to cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year, and will significantly raise the price of gas at the pump and energy in the home.
According to the EPW report, this ominous precedent can apply to small private entities as well, including churches, schools, restaurants, hospitals and farms. If this seems absurd, consider that under proposed federal permitting requirements, a farm whose aggregate emissions exceed CAA permitting thresholds would be required to comply with costly permitting mandates and pay an annual fee for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted on an annual basis. Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario, there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits… at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually… affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the United States.
Ozone Rule:
As reported in the New York Times last year, President Obama admitted that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” of tightening the ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy … but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.
By EPA’s own projections, it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,” which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities. Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures.....
Seeing Red, since you're an expert, tell us why your party lost two Presidential elections?
WHITE people F'ed us
Good grief.
We screwed ourselves. We were not beat, we didn't show up.
Let's be honest .... Obama won because the media and demorats use social issues , culture to win over most democrats states , 2/3 of then have a 75% and over white population and the vote aginst their ecomnic interests.
Hispanics and black population are concentrated in
red states, so the larger they have gotten , ( mostly Hispanic) the more the are turning former red states blue... First California, Nevada, New Mexcio, Floirda, Virginia, next Arizona, Texas
The way democrats win then is by naked appeals to tribe and race...".. This appeal -- appeal to one's tribe -- is powerful. It's also racist, and divisive, and promotes an Us vs. Them mentality... all those things which are terrible if a Republican even hints at it."
And giving amnesty to the 15 million illegals isn't going to win over Hispanic , they have become like blacks ... Comfortable with a big fat corrput welfare government It's not like they learned anything from the countries they leave in desperation for a decent living that are big, fat, corrupt socialist countries.
Romney who's a honest , decent man... Thought I wouldn't play the nake appeal to race, us vs them, under the radar the way democrats do.....Especially in Ohio, 80% white.... He thought ! the ecomny., jobs, a ecomnic future for that will stop us from becoming to Greece, citizens have to care they leave a viable nation to their children or for themselves.
Sorry, whites in blue states care more about abortion that would never be outlawed in their state.... Or to feel socially insink with the media culture.
And all these white fools Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Michigan, and other states like Oregon, and Connecticut.... Who at least 51 % should have woken up.... Wouldn't until it's too late and they realize voting for silly culture issues that would never effect their lives or become laws in the states...... Wasn't worth fiscal suicide.
One other point, if republican message that didn't connect with voters then why are 30 as of this election states run by Republcan Governor's or the House still republican.... Because the closer to the citzen, the more they vote on what actually effects them, taxes, fiscual issues, ecomny.... And not stupid made up issues the media invented...
ردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said
Look up. Can you see the drone? It's right up there. Keep looking.
That's it, keep looking.
Seeing Red, since you're an expert, tell us why your party lost two Presidential elections?
Tell us why your party can't hold a governorship to save it's ass!
Inga: "Oh my, oh my, what if the economic Armageddon never happens? What ever will you do?"
Denial, not just a river.
Inga, tomorrow I will lay off one full-time and two part-time employees & close my side business. Between income tax, business tax, and health care increases it just isn't worth the effort. My friend, he let half his staf go in September (29). Rest get their news tomorrow.
Boeing just announced their downsizing has begun. All those layoffs in defense industy (150k+) will begin in earnest post-election. Now that DOL & Obama allows it. 125,000 military personnel will be kicked out over next two years.
Good times, good times.
Inga wrote:
Seeing Red, since you're an expert, tell us why your party lost two Presidential elections?
why did dems lose two elections running against Bush? Why republic dems lose two elections against Clinton. Why did dems lose two elections against Reagan. It's incumbency stupid. That's the norm for the election.
Why did Obama, despite not having a record anywhere win the first time? There's a novelty and historisism to the first black president who is articulate and clean (Bidens words) and isn't all Jessie Jackson's. and more importantly, George bush was as about as popular as Hitler, and dems are fantastic demagogues and liars.
Why did Obama win the second time? Because he is the incumbent and its hard to beat incumbents, especially the first black president who is also a fabulous demagogue. And it doesn't hurt having he media completely ignore stories or push them till after the election. And it also doesn't hurt when the electorate on one side doesn't hold it's leader accountable for his broken promises or record. Dems will vote in Marion Barry with crackpots in mouth and prostitute in bed, and will look at an economic record so bad by all metrics that its almost incalculable and obama doesnt even run on and yet his voters will reply" hey, it could be worse. Baine! Vagina! Free!" In other words, he has voters like yourself. Dumb voters.
You'll note I left one guy off there. Well actually two- carter and Bush I. Carter lost because of an absolute atrocious economy and foreign policy and voters held him to account. And even Jimmy carter is laughing at Obamas economy.
And in the case of bush I he said "read my lips no new taxes" then raised taxes. And voters held him to account. Obama says he'll cut the debt in half then quadruples it. He says we need to pass the stimulus to save jobs then produces no shovel ready jobs. No green jobs, and 3 years of record unemployment.
He says he'll close Gitmo, will get all the lobbyists out of the White House, says he will be transparent and put negotiations on CSpan. Will try Terrorists in civilian courts. Just picking a few reneges off the top of my head.there are plenty more.
What can I say? You dems do not hold your candidate accountable for things he says and things he does or doesn't do. Even if those things are the same things that were impeachable offenses and unpatruiric and reckless and evil when a republican did them.
Alex wrote:
The answer is the Reform Party(again). We need a political party that is pro-secular, pro-capitalism, non-interference in people's lives(sex, drugs) and for strong national defense. I guarantee such a party would win the Presidency by 2020. There are enough of us that will never ever for GOP again.
whatever.
@jr565: I don't think Inga cares about any of what you raised. For her, it all came down to perceived threats to gay marriage and abortion.
Hey Alex how many votes is the reform party getting these days? Just today I saw Lyndon Larouche signs in New York.
That's where your reform party is, out on the fringe. But keep wasting your vote while allowing Barack Obama 4 more years.
And, your call for strong defense would turn off most liberals, you call for secular govt would turn off most evangelicals.and your pro capitalism would turn off most libs/ socialists. Even you call to legalize drugs would turn off law and order types. You'll notice that you might get a few states to legalize pot. But are you going to get a lot of support legalizing say - bath salts! Vote for the reform party well legalize bath salts! I'm sure you'll get a lot of voters who like to eat people's faces. Though you'll probably lose a few of the boters who'd prefer not to have their faces eaten.
Not only won't you win states, you won't even win counties!
Vote for candidates that Ron Paul calls fringe!
Inga said...
Oh my, oh my, what if the economic Armageddon never happens? What ever will you do?
Shhhh. It's happening now for the American middle class. Who do you think was hit the hardest with 8.+ unemployment?
"filled with white men who are still living in the early part of the century."
Isn't 2012 the early part of the century? It has 88 years to go.
Seeing Red, since you're an expert, tell us why your party lost two Presidential elections?
You ought to know.
Look, the presidency is about running the country, and the best person to do it. I hope you voted on that basis, and not some stupid "My Team" stuff or that the guy is black or good looking.
You should be able to tell us very easily what you hope the man is going to accomplish in the next 4 years that's in the countries interest. So please, enlighten us.
We do know why you lost the last two presidential elections, but the sad truth is you folks don't seem to be able to figure it out, even after is been spelled out in exit polls and voter demographic statistics.
"I find your glib "blessings" very offensive."
Are you ok w/Althouse ad nauseam glibness/sarcasm when she's dissing liberals? Rhetorical.
Are you ok w/the childish Republican profanity at this blog? Rhetorical.
I find Republican political voter suppression of minorities in OH/FL etc. very offensive.
Inga again: We do know why you lost the last two presidential elections, but the sad truth is you folks don't seem to be able to figure it out....
Sure they can. Rabid partisans, freeloaders, people committed to the unravelling of the nation, genitalia voters, other witless dupes and fraudulent voters combined to vote their personal interests instead of the country's interests.
No problem there.
Voters kept a president in office whose failures were in the area voters deemed "most important" to them: The economy. The trillion dollar question is why?
The most significant voter demographic change between the 2008 election and this election is that today millions more voters are dependent on government. So, in a very real sense, to many more voters than in 2008, “the economy” boils down to “the government”. And people vote their pocketbook - especially in hard times.
The Obama campaign positioned the election to this demographic as a choice between President Santa Claus, who promised to give them free money and stuff, and Romney the Grinch who would take it all away from them. Obama won. More easily than expected. But was it luck or just making the most of circumstance?
Neither. This win was coldly calculated in 2009: Obama and the Democrats not only did not let a good catastrophe go to waste by pushing Obamacare, they leveraged effects of the economic collapse into a second term as well. Aided by a tingling, compliant press, they willfully ignored the economy for 17 months betting that by doing so, come election 2012, there would be many more government-dependent voters (millions as it turned out) and they could then capture enough of them to get a second term.
Brilliant.. one might even say audacious. But cold, cynical and pure evil. And it worked.
I don't think this is the only reason Romney lost what should have been an easy'ish win - but it does fill a big gaping hole in the analysis of why he lost. And it explains why Obama would spend 17 months studiously avoiding the economy - something that would otherwise guarantee his being a one-term president.
There really isn't any mystery about what happened on Tuesday, and it wasn't surprising. It's happened several times before, and the responses to it (on both sides) are falling into the same old predictable talking points.
Romney, to sum it up a bit simplistically, tried to run on the 'inside the Beltway' wisdom that you win by swaying swing voters, and swing voters are (supposedly) 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal'. There isn't a dime's worth of electoral evidence to support this theory, however, and plenty to refute it.
This formula was tried in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2008, and now in 2012, with the _exact same results_ every time.
The problem is that the supposed 'swing' voters the GOP leadership really wants to sway are unreachable, they're going to either vote Democratic or (at best for a Republican) stay home. The GOP leadership wants to sway core elements of the Dem base over, and think they can do it by soft-pedaling or abandoning the social issues. The MsM and Dems encourage this illusion because it helps the Dems along on E-day.
The GOP doesn't win elections by swaying Dems, they win (when they do) by putting together a different coalition and wedging the Dems. Romney didn't even try to do this, and as a result he's not going to be President in January. There were very sound and practical reasons why so many GOP voters in the primaries had the attitude of 'anybody but Romney'.
But that, too, is not surprising. In 2006, the GOP elites decided that there were 3 'acceptable' candidates, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, and began a concerted effort to lock every other possibility out. The party base, unimpressed, shorted their names into the 'Rudy McRomney' line as far back as 2006.
Each one was supposedly going to be able to sway the 'fiscal conservative/social liberal' voters to put the GOP over the top, not incidentally freeing the party from dependence on a southern base that the leadership consider to be hicks.
We saw how well this worked out in practice. McCain's supposed crossover appeal turned out to be a media fabrication. Rudy flamed out in the primaries. And now Romney repeated the old insider formula to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
There is a possible silver lining here: Rudy McRomney is now a spent force. Which means that the GOP has a chance to take a hard look at who their supporters are, who their opponents are, and hopefully to set aside wishful thinking and start crafting policies that unify their base and wedge the opposition.
(It would not be very hard to wedge the Democratic Party base. It's fractious by nature, and some elements of it loathe other elements of it. But the GOP for the most part has lacked both the nerve and the perception to do it.)
There really isn't any mystery about what happened on Tuesday, and it wasn't surprising. It's happened several times before, and the responses to it (on both sides) are falling into the same old predictable talking points.
Romney, to sum it up a bit simplistically, tried to run on the 'inside the Beltway' wisdom that you win by swaying swing voters, and swing voters are (supposedly) 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal'. There isn't a dime's worth of electoral evidence to support this theory, however, and plenty to refute it.
This formula was tried in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2008, and now in 2012, with the _exact same results_ every time.
The problem is that the supposed 'swing' voters the GOP leadership really wants to sway are unreachable, they're going to either vote Democratic or (at best for a Republican) stay home. The GOP leadership wants to sway core elements of the Dem base over, and think they can do it by soft-pedaling or abandoning the social issues. The MsM and Dems encourage this illusion because it helps the Dems along on E-day.
The GOP doesn't win elections by swaying Dems, they win (when they do) by putting together a different coalition and wedging the Dems. Romney didn't even try to do this, and as a result he's not going to be President in January. There were very sound and practical reasons why so many GOP voters in the primaries had the attitude of 'anybody but Romney'.
But that, too, is not surprising. In 2006, the GOP elites decided that there were 3 'acceptable' candidates, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, and began a concerted effort to lock every other possibility out. The party base, unimpressed, shorted their names into the 'Rudy McRomney' line as far back as 2006.
Each one was supposedly going to be able to sway the 'fiscal conservative/social liberal' voters to put the GOP over the top, not incidentally freeing the party from dependence on a southern base that the leadership consider to be hicks.
We saw how well this worked out in practice. McCain's supposed crossover appeal turned out to be a media fabrication. Rudy flamed out in the primaries. And now Romney repeated the old insider formula to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
There is a possible silver lining here: Rudy McRomney is now a spent force. Which means that the GOP has a chance to take a hard look at who their supporters are, who their opponents are, and hopefully to set aside wishful thinking and start crafting policies that unify their base and wedge the opposition.
(It would not be very hard to wedge the Democratic Party base. It's fractious by nature, and some elements of it loathe other elements of it. But the GOP for the most part has lacked both the nerve and the perception to do it.)
Most groups moved towards Romney, so in the end, it all came down to turnout. Obama got out the vote, and Romney didn't.
We do know why you lost the last two presidential elections, but the sad truth is you folks don't seem to be able to figure it out, even after is been spelled out in exit polls and voter demographic statistics.
Be serious. Write down what you think Obama is going to do in his next four years. How is the economy going to do.
Don't be a child about it. Don't look to the fact that you are in good company with your vote. Tell us what good you are expecting from Obama, and then you are accountable. Merely writing over and over that others voted with you, so everyone who didn't is wrong is childish.
Again, what do you think Obama is going to do in the next four years? What will happen to the unemployment rate? What about the military? Let us all know.
shiloh said...
Someone tell Althouse #1 doting, trained seal the election is over. TIA
Don't look behind you, but there's another recession coming. Hell it already started. There ain't enough millionaires in the country to make this one go away. Unemployment will be close to 9% by February.
Post a Comment