hat This Election Means
There is no point in spinning -- conservatives need to face honestly what this election means.
A first take: Gov. Mitt Romney tried to win while leaning on only one leg of the old Reagan coalition: jobs, jobs, jobs, economy, economy, economy. Against a president with a poor record on the economy, he lost.
The Mitch Daniels "truce" strategy on social issues is a clear loser in this election. The Reagan coalition, which honestly may not be the pathway to victory moving forward, had three legs: values issues, national defense and economic growth.
Romney adopted the most ineffectual strategy vis-a-vis the social issues: adopt them, and therefore adopt the negatives for them, but refuse to fight for them when challenged. The GOP ended up defending rape exceptions to abortion -- our very weakest turf -- in part because we refused to make any arguments that reflected the electorate's profound distaste for sex-selection abortions, late-term abortions or government-funded abortions.
The truce strategy means we have all the negatives of our social issues and none of the positives.
Secondly, the Romney weakness. Let's be honest: The money guys bought the GOP nomination for a candidate who voters didn't like very much. Romney won by pummeling his opponents with negative ads. He lost the same way because he did not have a 5-to-1 money advantage over Obama. The "money primary" is key in the early selection process. The money guys need to re-evaluate who is a winning candidate -- or continue to pour resources into losing.
This is not an argument for Rick Santorum or any other particular candidate. It was just obvious that Romney could not win, and could not appeal to blue-collar voters, without pummeling his opponents with massive money. It's not a strategy for victory.
The most important point: Either we figure out how to win a much larger share of the Latino vote or the conservative movement could be over. Karl Rove's Crossroads strategy of appealing to Latinos only on economic issues is a clear failure. I think social issues are part, but only part, of a serious effort to appeal to Latino voters. We also need to show them we care about them by doing something about the DREAM Act, and religious conservatives should take the lead on this.
In the past, conservatives tried to trot out economic corporate voice for immigration reform. This failed to persuade the base of the party. Religious conservatives need to take the lead in making the case for some vision of immigration reform that communicates to Hispanic evangelicals and Catholics that we care about the well-being of them and their families.
Agreed. Where is the love of the children? Obama and his would, apparently, rather they be burdened with unsustainable debt for votes, today, than be caring towards them. This is not how adults should treat their children. It is childishness, itself.
I would assume Bill Ayres, and all the others that hate Conservative values, think the kids would thrive in an economy of Greece, or, perhaps, Cuba. These are enemies of our children and we should never join them in the abuse of our progeny. Bad enough they kill them just as they are ready to be born.
You want to defeat the policies of BHO, allow them to be implemented. I know this is not going to be taken well but now is the perfect time to do it. We need to encourage Boehner to compromise...no...cave into all of Obama's demands. Let his policies pass and pass immediately. The sooner he can take full credit for the collapse, the quciker everyone will realize that these policies are a recipe for disaster. If we don't do it now, we will simply be seen as obstructionists and just get killed by the media. Even If the economy improves (as it has since the mid-term election. Coincidence?), BHO will take credit for it while Congress gets vilified. Make the move now.
As you no doubt know, Conservatives were justly angry that UN observers should come here to see our elections, but it did not turn out as they feared. The investigators were amazed as to the lack of controls over voter fraud. Some use thumb-prints. That is not discriminatory, unless you lack at least one thumb.
Some drop a marble in a bottle and you can hear if they drop more than one marble. It is not rocket science, and it does not help ACORN or Obama. Al Franken would not like
Very good column, Maggie; as usual. Except that your final sentence is flawed. There is no "conservative movement."
There's no conservative Republican Party. The Party won't unite under a rock-ribbed conservative any better than under a so-called RINO. Voting for a president requires brains, not just ideological conviction. The time has come for us to stop the knee-jerk ideology and bring people together.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Lakhiem Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:15 PM
It's a shame that many of my fellow conservatives take glee in the fact that 2,000 Americans have now made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan. It's too bad they have forgotten that AFGHANISTAN is where AL-QAEDA attacked the USA from on 9-11 and were given sanctuary by the Taliban. These dupes of Republican party propaganda still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 or they still, mistakenly believe, that Saddam had WMD in the year 2003.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Lakhiem Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:15 PM
and yes, Saddam did have WMD in the 1980's, and used them, when Ronald Wilson Reagan game them the green light to use them on his own citizens.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
John C6 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 7:12 PM
Reagan never did that. A complete lie.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
l_d_allan Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:03 PM
Turnout seems to have been a factor.
Pres. Obama beat Sen. McCain in the popular vote by 66.9m to 58.3m.
He beat Gov. Romney by 60.4m to 57.6m. Pres. Obama received 6.5m fewer votes in 2012, yet still won.
\Evangelicals?
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
traitorbill Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:00 PM
It's all over. The fat lady (michelle) is singing.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
traitorbill Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:58 PM
Excuses excuses. Who cares? We lost. Ballgame over. forever.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
traitorbill Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:56 PM
What does it mean? It means the final nail has been driven into the coffin of the country we have known and loved. Fundamental transformation has become the new normal.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
sweinstein Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:26 PM
Um, Maggie, Iowa retained the judge who mandated marriage equality. It and Minnesota and Maine are not "deep blue states." You are in a state of deep denial that the majority of Americans your organization's mean-spirited hate-filled message. I realize that Townhall is a bottom-feeder of the right, but even it needs to shut you up once and for all. Just go away.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
traitorbill Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:59 PM
Is the Bible mean-spirited and hate-filled?
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Terminus in WA Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:01 PM
You first.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Michael461 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:59 PM
" Let's be honest: The money guys bought the GOP nomination for a candidate who voters didn't like very much. "
And there you have it.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 3:09 PM
The best answer is the laser point, succinct one. You found it.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
David238 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:45 PM
Trying to appease Latinos is about as stupid as you can get. Republicans could suddenly start championing the DREAM Act, opposing eVerify checks, and granting blanket amnesty and it won't help them one iota with the Latino vote. Latinos aren't stupid --- they know that Republicans are being dragged into supporting this nonsense and that if they want to be pandered to then they should support Democrats.
If Republicans want the Latino vote then they need to do a better job of convincing them, and apparently the rest of the public, that Republican policies of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty are better for the nation as a whole and for Latinos as well. Whereas the Democrat nanny state is a recipe for disaster.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Troglodite Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:02 PM
While this may not work, it is the ONLY course that offers any prospect of working. The Republicans cannot reasonably hope to out-flank and out-pander the Democrats in order to get the Latino vote. The La Raza gang will happily pocket anything that the Republicans give them and then continue supporting the Democrats.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 5:11 PM
Republicans will reach out to Spanish-speaking voters or let them all vote for Democrats. What little choice this Party still has is with Latinos or not at all. A troglodite isn't distinguished by sharp rationale. We do not have to pander. We have to capture a share at least; of the 2nd largest minority voting bloc. It might be difficult. But for Americans of good will, it would pay off in further elections. Otherwise; this is the end of the GOP.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
M444ss Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:50 PM
While not disputing that the demography of our nation is changing and that the hispanic vote is significant, it is also significant that at least 3 millions LESS republicans turned out for Romney than for McCain. Before we go trying to convince leftists to be conservatives, perhaps we should first convince conservatives to actually cast a vote against leftists.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Andy544 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 3:46 PM
"We should first convince conservatives to actually cast a vote against leftists."
Easier said the done when BOTH the candidates are LEFTISTS....one, a far left radical socialist, the other, a left of center RINO from Moss-ah-chew-setts.. This was another RINO establishment guy running as the token 'also ran' against the guy on the far left. Romney joins the ranks of McCain, both Bushes, and Dole as Liberal Republicans that did not represent a significant conservative choice in opposition to the Left. No energized base= NO VICTORY
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Patriotic Chicagolander Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:29 PM
Another thing that needs to be done is to close primaries to Democrats in the primaries, so the true gauge of Republican choices can be unadulterated.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Andy544 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:39 AM
This columnist missed the whole point. Romney lost because he was a RINO, moderate-to-Left candidate who was 'hand picked' by the GOP establishment, and 'rammed down the throat' of the GOP conservative base, who had no real 'stomache' or loyalty for Romney, but were simply registering a NO vote for the incumbent. The GOP establishment could have run 'Oscar, the Flying Raccoon' as its candidate, and the conservative base would have grudgingly voted for him. Unfortunately, 'grudging' support does not make for a WINNING election. The 2nd (and possibly more important reason) Romney lost, was Romney had no 'fire' in his belly to take the fight to the most vulnerable candidate since Jimmy Carter. Romney played 'Alphonse' to Obama's 'Gaston'.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Andy544 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:49 AM
And the reason 'why' Romney had no 'fire in his belly' against Obama? Getting back to point # 1(above): he's a RINO, moderate-to-left candidate who is CLUELESS about genuine conservative principles and values. Watching the 2nd debate (foreign affairs) was embarrassing. Romney's whole goal the entire debate was to 'out grin' Obama and be the 'perfect gentleman'. Romney had the golden opportunity to absolutely SHRED Obama for the lies, deceit, and treachery of Benghazi, but stood there meekly, with a 'deer in the headlights' stare as Candy Crowley 'b$#%-slapped him down over 'the transcript' (which, just mysteriously, she had 'right at hand' for that moment
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Patriotic Chicagolander Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:57 AM
I agree. Not mentioning Benghazi was a crucial mistake by Romney. At the very least, it would have forced the MSM to lift its blackout on the subject.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Patriotic Chicagolander Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 11:37 AM
43% of the electorate did not vote. Why did they not and what was the makeup of these?
No enthusiasm? Mostly takers versus makers?
I don't buy the "racial" demographic change argument. By 2050 the white population will still be 74% vice 80% today(per the 2008 census).
There are young Republican rising stars who, if one is nominated, can effectively dispel the "old white man" party stereotype perpetuated by the media and the Democrats. The important part is the "old."
We need to be more effective in combating Democrat lies. "Gentleman" doesn't cut it anymore, We need to be more "Gentleman Jim." My brother-in-law in Florida called me yesterday and said he voted for Obama so he wouldn't lose his Medicare. He is 62.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Patriotic Chicagolander Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 12:25 PM
This just in on Rush: 3 million Republicans sat out this election.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
geotay Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 10:27 PM
Or had their ballots shredded...?
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
« Previous1 2 Next »
ownhall Columnists Crystal Wright
Republicans Got the Shellacking We Deserve
Nov 09, 2012
Click if you like this column!
Wednesday wasn’t “good morning” in the GOP. President Obama won a second term. Republicans deserve the shellacking we got because the party of Lincoln is running candidates in 2012 like it’s 1860. Old white men just don’t cut it anymore and are not reflective of the changing demographics of the country. America is browning up not whitening up, as evidenced by the US Census findings that minorities will make up 54% of the population by the year 2050.
Americans didn’t buy what the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was selling because he was the wrong messenger for a growing ethnically diverse population. Whites made up 72% of voters in 2012 of which Romney won 60% but appealing to whites only wasn’t enough to carry him to the White House. The diminishing importance of the white vote is evidenced by the fact Obama earned 38% of the white vote, five points less than he did in 2008, according to the Wall Street Journal and still won re-election.
It’s not the message Republicans need to change but the messengers who are selling the message. To his credit and the Democrats, Obama did heavy outreach to blacks, Latinos and Hispanics and it paid off. Obama increased his win of the Hispanic vote from 67% in 2008 to 69% in 2012, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. According to CNN, black voter turnout in swing states like Pennsylvania was higher than it was in 2008 and Obama earned over 90% of the black vote overall this election.
In contrast, Romney gave what amounted to lip service light to the Hispanic and Latino outreach. Romney and the RNC spent millions of dollars in advertising to Hispanics, yet he failed to chip away at that voting bloc because people can tell when you don’t really care about their vote.
Even more insulting was Romney’s refusal to work for the black vote beyond giving an NAACP speech and announcing a Black Leadership Council, which amounted to nothing more than cosmetic wall paper. Knowing Obama wasn’t earning the black vote and blacks would simply vote for him because he was black, you would think Romney and the RNC would do more to take their message to black America.
A year ago, the RNC hired me to create a black outreach website to attract more blacks to the Republican Party. After near completion of the site in the late spring of 2012, Romney and the RNC killed the project, explaining they didn’t want to launch the site without putting outreach activities behind it. I agreed and recommended a slate of outreach activities such as town hall meetings at historically black colleges and universities in swing states such as Virginia and North Carolina. The RNC’s refused to fund any black outreach activities.
|
