For most of the last two years, if not the last four, many conservatives and Republicans assumed that Barack Obama could not be re-elected. A poor economy, an unpopular liberal agenda shoved down the throat of the country, and a largely uninspiring presidential leadership style combined to create a widespread belief on the right that the 2012 election would be a layup for them. We now know what some of us suspected for a long time: Republicans drastically underestimated the president’s appeal as a historic figure.
The postmortem on the Republican failure to defeat the president will go on until 2016, but the finger pointing within the party will largely miss the point. Their big problem was not Romney’s moderation (likely to be the right wing’s favorite theory); the influence of the Tea Party (the standard liberal interpretation); the failure to do outreach to Hispanics (though they need to address this problem); Romney’s inability to run against ObamaCare; the GOP standard bearer’s decision not to talk more about himself and letting the Democrats define him; the decision not to hammer Obama more over the Benghazi fiasco or even Hurricane Sandy.
The main obstacle to a Republican victory was that they were seeking to defeat the first African-American president aided by a supportive mainstream media, buttressed by the power of incumbency and what turned out to be a tremendously efficient campaign organization. Contrary to the delusion that Obama was a loser waiting to be knocked off, beating him was always going to be a long shot. Though the GOP will spend much of the coming weeks, months and years beating each other up as they assign blame for the defeat, the fact is, Romney did well to come as close as he did. Rather than wonder about what Republicans could have done better, conservative analysts would do better to look at the president’s strengths.
Most conservatives were prepared to acknowledge that the majority of Americans were still pleased with the idea of righting some historic wrongs by electing an African-American in 2008. But they failed to understand that even though Obama’s administration was not widely viewed as a great success, at least half of the country was not prepared to toss him out of office after only one term.
As an incumbent, Obama was able to claim credit for things for which he did not deserve many plaudits, like the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the response to the hurricane in the last days before the election. He also could count on the unfailing support of much of the media even when he was embarrassed by events, such as in Libya.
These were strengths that many Republicans continually discounted or disregarded entirely.
The close nature of the loss at a time when the national economy is still stagnant will naturally cause many on the right to speculate on what Romney and his campaign could have done differently. They will be right when they point out he should have fought back immediately against the slurs against his character that were the focus of much of the Obama campaign’s early efforts. Maybe a perfect GOP effort could have gotten that extra one percent of the vote that would have turned a few close states and elected Romney. That’s something that will torment conservatives as ObamaCare is implemented and Obama continues to govern from the left.
But even his sternest critics must admit Romney ran quite a creditable campaign and was able to use the debates to make the race closer and even take a lead in some polls in the last month. They must also acknowledge that the conservative assumption that the electorate in 2012 would be very different than it was in 2008 was wrong.
The good news for the GOP is that contrary to those who will predict that there is a permanent Democratic majority, the circumstances of 2012 won’t be repeated in four years. Obama will be gone in 2016 and anyone who thinks that Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo or even Hillary Clinton will have an easy time against the deep Republican bench that is ready to run next time misunderstands the nature of American politics.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama won the 2012 election far more than the Republicans lost it. Obama may be a remarkably unsuccessful president (he’s the first to win re-election by a smaller margin) but he was never the patsy most conservatives imagined. Conservatives spent the last two years since their 2010 midterm victory operating under a serious delusion about the president’s political strengths. That’s a terrible indictment of their political acumen, but it won’t affect their chances in four years when Obama is no longer on the ballot.
America will continue on the road to becoming like Western Europe and will shrink internationally. God save this country now!
Funny thing that our Media, felt the economy was the main issue, and perhaps character as well. Which a reasonable person must at least Mitt, had a better understanding of economics, n nSo what won this election ? Well, not so much incumbancy, I do think the media was a nice sling shot for Mr. Obama, but this is still not the main reason. The hidden issue crawling beneath the buzz of the media was The Village concept. n nThe interest in the Obama voters was to be: multi-cultural with other nations abroad, universal in disarming the world of mass guns, green in their love for the environment, and desperate for a leader to change the colonial financial domination of white Europeons, striping the world of dignity and resources. n nClearly Obama was the best choice for the above vision.
Afraid, get back on your meds.!
This election was lost by the Republicans who having failed to remember their past mistakes, did it once again by going soft on their opponents. That Obama did not have to face ONE tough question or any repeated grilling over Benghazi or Obamacare or his assault on religious freedom during this campaign is a testament to the rank incomptence of the GOP in nominating the one candidate who had a vested interest in never making Obamacare an issue, thus forfeiting EVERYTHING that defined the success of the 2010 campaign. Romney just decided after the first debate to run the clock out and play defense and in the process squandered a chance to make this a campaign a clear referendum on the failed leadership of a rank incompetent who has only succeeded thanks to his skin color and the most sycophantic press corps that has now demonstrated once and for all just how much of a danger they are to our system of government by providing this kind of cover for elected leaders they root for. n n n n
The election was lost decades ago when the media stopped watching out for the nation, and sided essentially en masse for the Democratic Party. n nAmerica, as an exceptional nation standing for individual freedom, is over. n nCongress has become more and more impotent. I say we are at a point approximately corresponding to when Caesar Augustus “relieved” the Roman Senate of its responsibilities. Don’t expect Obama to pay much attention to Congress from here on out. Better get used to executive orders being the order of the day along with ObamaCare cum death panels. n nHoping for a Republican Party and an election to fix this mess? Good luck with that. n nIt was nice while it lasted. n n(It is pretty ridiculous to expect the electorate to get the story straight with about a four hour window of sort of unfiltered Presidential debates.)
Well they went hard on abortion. So there is that.
Next time, can we also for ONCE see some backbone from the Republicans and demand an end to this constant practice of having the debates moderated by left-wing media hacks? Why the Republicans constantly agree to have debates moderated by the likes of Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer who we can always count on to never ask questions that require the Democrat candidate, incumbent or challenger, to address his most controversial positions that reveal their own left wing extremism is something I'll never know.
yeah I completely agree. Bret Baier from Fox is the best straight-news guy in the business, and he probably wasn't even considered to moderate. Candy Crowley basically won the second debate FOR Obama. (and let's not forget, it's still suspicious that she just happened to have had the transcript and that Obama KNEW she had it. just one more thing the MSM had no interest in exploring.)
Sadly, the America I grew up with and loved is finished.
But at least I had it for 69 years, and I’m grateful for
that, at least.
But I feel even sadder, and sorry, for the young ones
coming up today. They will never know that America, the
America of Hoppy, Gene and Roy. The America of Ike and
Ronnie. The America where the best part of a ball game
was that silly song they always played before the game.
That Shining City of the Hill of my youth and adulthood
will now become Detroit.
Goodbye, America the Beautiful…
Jim Whittaker
Hemet, CA
I just texted my 22-year-old daughter and apologized to her for Obamacare. I really do feel like we're losing something great. n
Unfortunately, there is a deeper problem here. The secularizing of America has been the result of the secularizing of the major universities, which train the thinking of America. There is a one-to-one correlation between level of education and liberal views in the West, including the U.S. We conservatives have got to get back to basics: deep reflection, study, writing about life, art, and science. Without real academic influence, we are going to lose America. Get the conservatives out of the "think tanks" and back into academia. Stop the infantilization of America.
Fuhrer Obama lost 20 million voters from 2008. But, Romney lost 8 million from 2008. Had it not been for the latter, today would be a different day. Romney is a good man. A better man than Petain McCain. But, you have to fight nasty with a Democrat and kick them in the teeth at every turn. Romney lost this election the moment he started talking about 'reaching across the aisle' to work with Democrats. We don't want to work with Democrats. We want them down in the ditch, where they belong.
Is it really true that 28 million less votes were cast than in 2008? I don't believe it.
It's true. And Romney got less votes than McCain did too.
not true. Obama lost appx ten million votes less. Romney three million.
Do the 2012 totals you're using include absentees?
sorry, it wouldn't have worked to go down and dirty on this one. the MSM was simply not going to allow that to happen. it was part of the deal that Obama was going to be able to say whatever he wanted with no brushback, whereas Romney wouldn't be able to say a thing without being called a racist or a fool.
That kind of cowardly defeatist thinking is precisely why we lost.
It was lost because we failed to appreciate the poor judgement and now almost inate ignorance and superficiality of much of the American delectorate. 2 generations of watered down, lowest common denominator socialist higher education meant even the elites did not have the intellectual tools to analyze the trajectory of where Obama was taking us. n nAdd that to the dependancy engendered by obama's policies and you have your answer. n nThese factors will be there in 2016, only more so. n nYes, it was nice while it lasted.
For Obama to win reelection on the worst economic performance imaginable and against a moderate and competent Republican just shows that the electorate has moved solidly to the left. This is no longer a "center-right" country. The Republicans will now be reduced to playing small ball, haggling over the copays in ObamaCare rather than trying to overturn it, or arguing over how many aircraft carriers to chop down and throw into the maw of social spending. We'll have economic decline but we'll have what's more important: "fairness".
I don't agree that the electorate has moved to the left. in fact, I think that if you wrote up the positions of Obama and Romney on a whole range of subjects (not all, of course), I bet that many Americans (and most Obama voters) wouldn't be able to tell you which policy their candidate endorses. n nObama urged his supporters to get "revenge" by voting. that's one of the most illuminating comments he's ever made. it's personal with them–look at the tasteless tweet Superfriend Beyonce sent this morning–in a way that it will not be when their Messiah at long last goes away. n nand I'll put Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley and Eric Cantor and Susannah Martinez up against any Democrat contender any day.
I disagree with you Jonathan. Look at the electorial college map and each county. The Democrats were very effective in having people believe that voting for the GOP’s (Romney/Ryan) would mean the end of social security benefits. The younger voters supported the Democrats (Obama) because of education. Union members supported the Democrats (Obama) – for example, benefits as a result of being a union member is remembered from the auto baleout. The GOP’s have not rid themselves completely of the perception of anti-Semitism – and honoring Ron Paul didn’t help. The Democrats were very successful in downplaying Obama’s conflict with Israel and in displaying him and the Democrats (Obama) as being supportive of Israel. The Democrats (Obama) captured the Hispanic vote because many GOP or teaparty measures were seen as anit-Hispanic.
You can “explain” away how these perceptions are “incorrect” but these one liners are what stay in the voter’s head come election day.
sorry, but the Democrats have CLEARLY shown that they are not pro-Israel. they took language out of their platform about that and again CLEARLY did not want to put it back in. they were forced to put it back in because they were told it would look bad for the election. n nthis anti-Semitism of the Republicans you've invented doesn't exist. it's one of the main reasons I became a Republican after years of being a Democrat: I could not take their anti-Israel stances. (Ron Paul is a kook and a minor figure who will never be anything of note in the national Republican party, and everyone recognizes that.) n nI hope I'm wrong, but I suspect we'll soon see evidence of Obama's personal anti-Israel animus. n
Just to chime in on the anti- israel aspect of this. The coming months will show conclusively that Obama does not care one whit about israel. And we will see then what our liberal "brethren' will do.
Dear jkbrent: enough ranting and raving. Count to ten and take a deep breath. I don't want anyone, including democrats, "in the ditch" I want them healthy and hopeful on the street where I live. I want them to be good neighbors and helpful citizens, just like we conservative should be. Should be.
Yes, we want them to grow and prosper and stand on their own two feet. Who knows…maybe, after being free and self-sufficient for awhile, some might even become Republicans.
Excellent analysis by JT. Romney did a very credible job, but the historic nature of the presidency definitely carried a premium. I do think that twice now, first with McCain and then with Romney, choice of vice-president was poor. Ryan turned off many independents; if Romney had nbeen able and willing to find a centrist Republican with real appeal, the tide might have turned.
Romney was first disqualified by Romneycare and then did a less than mediocre job, playing prevent defense after the first debate and blowing the Bengazi issue, among other things. And Ryan IS a centrist Republican (at least less of a liberal than Romney) though a bit of a wuss if his disappearing act in the debate with the Biden clown is any evidence. An "independent" who is "turned off" by the inoffensive Ryan is just an unannounced Democrat. What the Republicans needed to do is turn out voters who didn't like what the Democrats were doing, but they instead convinced a lot of them that there was no point.
Obama is still in the White House. The Dems still have a filibuster exposed tiny majority in the Senate. The lower house is still in the hands of the GOP, even moreso than before. n nWe already know that when Obams had unilateral control of the White House AND Congress nothing happened and even less happened after 2010. For at least the next two years, there will be more of the same nothing. Obama will blithely watch the economy fall off a cliff soon. We'll head for a deep recession. The White House/MSNBC will blame it on GOP obstructionism and demand Americans return the lower house to the Democratic party. If that happens that gives Obama about one year to attempt to do something, anything. And then the last year will devoted to the Obama library, carving a new face on Mt Rushmore and the usual nonsense that occupies an incumbent's last year in office. n nThe flurry of Presidential pardons in December 2016 will be an awesome spectacle.
The GOP needs to stop giving the Dems the women's vote. nNewYork2010 playbook worked on a national scale in 2012. n nCongress DOES have a chance to reform ACA as part of the debt/deficit fiscal cliff. n nMy career was destroyed by vulture capitalists, and big ideas from Bain Consulting in the 1990's. Millions of us. Took me until September to overcome my bias. n nLook on the bright side: WV's Joe Manchin could become the 2016 Dem nominee, assuming there is still a USA with a U.S. Constitution. nAnd, am surprised Hoeven and Johann are never mentioned as part of GOP's deep bench. nAll former governors now in the US Senate. Add Bob Corker.
Look, Mitt never had a chance when the President could turn out more 18-28 year olds than he did in 2008 and turn out droves of African-Americans, who went 93% for the President. Like Mitt said, to paraphrase, we need to daaven for the President and the country. Their ability to take supporters and turn them into voters is awe-inspiring; I hope that the next Democratic nominee is unable to do so. I am not sure that the identity of the Republican nominee made a difference.
The election was lost by the nation. n nA Czech diplomat is supposed to have said that with the 2008 election Americans proved they were not racists. In 2012 they must prove they are not stupid. n nWe have failed that test. Romney was no bargain, but we reelected a huckster after he proved that he was a huckster and an incompetent. Now we will get the full, unexpurgated edition of that. n nWe will survive Obama. But we will not survive what he indicates. This country, its mind set and its political system no longer allow honest and capable men to win power and preserve this ship of fools from barnacles, rot and oblivion.
Jonathan hit the ball out of the park. All of the comments by other posters (more aggresiveness, mainstream midea, secularization…etc) deal with the tactical sie of the election. Sure, they could have been improved but no campaign is perfect. The Republicans won big in 2010 on the same issues that faced the nation, yet the President won in 2012 ,following his victory in 2008. What has changed since 2010? (The republicans retained the House quite easily) . OBAMA- and his election is due to one thing only: his status as the first African-American president. A white President in the same position would have lost-just like Carter. And Obama came close to losing. So, the Republicans should continue preaching fiscal sanity, a freer economy, smaller government. there will never be another Obama and herein lies the Republican's opportunity.
"So, the Republicans should continue preaching fiscal sanity, a freer economy, smaller government" n nRepublicans should try governing for once instead of "preaching". Your side is very good at preaching to the choir but your record is anything but fiscally conservative. Today's Republican Party is animated by a hatred of Government and a belief that tax cuts for rich people solves everything. That's not going to get you many converts. I would suggest a little self reflection and a little less hubris. The country has real problems that need to be addressed. It's time to look for moderates who can actually get things done rather than the flamethrowers your side is so very fond of.
Your comments could not be more wrong. "a belieff that tax cuts for the rich people solves everything". How about tax cuts for EVERYONE? Your words are even more wrong in the view of the economic prosperity during George Bush' years-yes, those "terrible years" when tax receipts were at its height, unemployment around five percent and we were respected in the world. n"a hatred of government" no ,only of expansive federal government, a government that ultimately becomes fascism.
michael, don't feed the trolls. anyone who truly believes that conservatives "hate" government cannot be reasoned with.
Really? What was the unemployment rate when Bush left office? Five percent? Oh, and did the government get smaller under Bush? Bush inherited a surplus but of course back then, deficits didn't matter. You know, I am old enough to remember 2008. I don't remember that time as one of economic prosperity. If you really believe in fiscal responsibility and smaller government, please don't insult me and anyone with a modicum of intelligence by offering George W Bush as an example.
Let's see: umemployment througout the first decade was what? five pervent? This amounts to full employment- let's see how we fare on that in the next few years.we have not done well till now, have we? you are cooking the books when you point at 2008-the last year of Bush. As far as growing the govt by Bush and the deficit- we never had a surplus- that is just propaganda-we had a promise of surplus-wiped out by 9/11 and its aftermath.- but I tend to agree with you on the growing of the govt.but, we are now muhc,much worse off. Obama is saddling thsi country with a debt that it will take a century-if that- to recover from..
“Cooking the books”? Bush largely created the hole in our finances with large tax cuts and an unnecessary military adventure in Iraq. He also added Medicare part D without worrying about how to pay for it. Those are the facts. As for unemployment, we're still digging out of the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Republicans have spent the last four years making sure nothing was done to create or improve conditions that might help ease unemployment because the goal was making Obama a one term president. Didn't work. People saw through it. Now, I suspect the whiners and the true believers will be sent to their rooms so that grown ups within the Republican Party can begin to work with the President and the Democrats to actually solve some of the problems we're facing. We're in this together like it or not.We just had an election. Both sides had a chance to present their plans and policies and your side lost. You can spend the next four years whining like children or you can get on with the business of governing. I hope Republicans choose wisely.
Please look at the election results. The House (which truly represents the real people) is in republican hands still, so no, we did not lose the election just the Presidential election- and this by a President who was the first to be re-elected this century with LESS votes than the first time around. Speak about a non-mandate! nAs far as the financial cfrisis, etc, please read about the reasosn for the financial collapse, that can be laid squarely at the feet of House democrats. nfor the rest (Iraq, Part D) , al lthis will pale compared to Obamacare with its biggest tax increase in history and the subsequnet tanking of the ecomony.
Republicans retained the house because they successfully gerrymandered lots of districts. In competitive races, they lost more than they won. Look, you can ignore the results all you want. Make any excuses you like but at the end of the day, your party has a giant problem convincing the vast majority of the electorate they should be given any power to govern. Conservatives need to do a lot more self reflection and a lot less whining. We'll see if they're up to the task.
I know that mathematics is not your strong suit but Obama got less (a lot less) votes than in 2008 and Romney closed the gap down to appx. two percent. So, a landslide it is not. Secondly, gerrymandering has been around for well over a hundred years and the democrats used that pracice pretty efficiently when they were losing presidential elections.The nation is essentially divided and ,true, it will be up to us to present good policies but a "giant' problem it is not.
Just keep telling yourself all is well. Keep sending up candidates who believe that rape is a gift from god. Keep electing candidates who believe that Democrats should leave the country. The electorate thinks the candidates who fire up the base, the really loud, obnoxious, no compromise fire breathers like Allen West, Richard Mourdock, Joe the Plumber, Todd Akin, and Michelle Bachmann, are loony tunes. Those candidates won their primaries because people like you believe there should be more yelling and tantrum throwing in Washington, not less. Only Bachmann was able to squeak out a victory. The country has sent a message. Ignore it at your peril.
look, i am getting tired responding to your posts. You are parroting the worse aspects of the democratic machine. I know you are an Obama-ite ,so let's see what the future brings. have a great life!
“You are parroting the worse aspects of the democratic machine”I see, the problem isn't Republicans saying dumb things, it's those evil Democrats pointing them out. Take care, I'll pray for you.
"Keep sending up candidates who believe that rape is a gift from god." n nSounds to me like parroting Dem nonsense. Exactly which GOP candidates believe RAPE is a "gift from god"?
Richard Mourdock.”I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”Spin that however you like. This guy lost and probably drove women away from the Republicans in races all across the country. Your instinct is to blame Democrats but then again, that's your fall back position on issue after issue. It's never your teams' fault. There's always someone else to blame. It's time Republicans take a good hard look in the mirror.
"“God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.” — Richard Mourdock n nAnd Akin didn't say that rape was legitimate, either.
2012 brought into clearest relief ever the power of the MSM to magnify exponentially a liberal's even modestly positive attributes (e.g. Obama's "likability") and ignore all relevant negatives (e.g. Benghazi). In a fantasy world, the heads of the major networks and editors of the NYT, WaPo, etc. would be called out by politicians on the right on a daily basis for this contemptibly corrupt behavior.
Not to mention how the media pressure and Obama's bullying was what made John Roberts cave and uphold Obamacare. The last four years was dictatorship of a kind that IMO proves once and for all that *everything* Richard Nixon was driven from office over in Watergate, was penny-ante partisan crap of no substance whatsoever. Obama is our first dictator who has proved he can get away with anything so long as he has his (1) skin color to wave in everyone's face (2) a sycophantic press corps that will abet and lie for him (3) an entertainment industry that has become a Sodomite cesspool of immorality and non-stop left-wing political advocacy complete with its own odious blacklist of conservative thought.
Why vote for Republicans when they give you Mr. Read My Lips, Mr.50 Years of Earmarks, Mr. TARP, Mr.Keating Five RINO for TARP, Mr. Romneycare and, in passing, the odious Justice Roberts? Well, a lot of folks didn't, and if the next nominee is Mr.Amnesty for Illegals, they won't next time either.
—- ” The bottom line is that Barack Obama won the 2012 election far more than the Republicans lost it.”—-
This stuff from Tobin is just WRONG.
The truth is that Obama did not campaign well. He performed disastrously in that first debate and Romney performed fairly well.
The truth is that the republicans had nary a single credible alternative to Romney, a man that generated no enthusiasm among the the people who vote in republican primaries.
It was the paucity of the Republican field of champions , and the basic rejection of the meanness of the Republican rhetoric, tactics and policies of late years by the moderate independent voters that doomed the republicans.
It wasn’t merely that Obama won, but that the the Republican far right LOST.
AFTER the first debate Romney did NOT perform "fairly well". Mr. 47% returned to being a disaster, and if you think he's what you call "far right" or was their guy you are severely delusional.
President Obama's race is the side issue. It is implausible, to say no more, to place the manifold failures of Obama's administration in one pan of the scales and Obama's race in the other, and expect the latter to carry the point. In order for Obama to win, something in addition to Mitt Romney had to lose or, as I believe, had already to have been lost, which is to say, the belief among enough Americans that right and wrong have a meaning beyond the political ends they may be recruited to serve. n nSeparating economically conservative policies from socially conservative values is possible in the short term. Fools do it all the time and imagine that they are getting away with something: enjoying rights without responsibilities. In the long run—and after nearly half a century of soul-deadening and corrosive moral relativism masquerading as "tolerance" or "non-judgmentalism," we are definitely well into a very long run indeed—the two conservatisms CANNOT be separated. It is a form of insanity to believe otherwise. n nRampant and metastasizing sexual immorality alone, while being cynically applauded in influential quarters, created tens of millions of fatherless children, which, unsurprisingly, has left the nation with countless dysfunctional single-parent "families" comprised of dependent adults and ineducable children. On the one hand we observe grotesque social pathology rooted in immoral sexual behavior that flouts conservative social values in the name of individual "autonomy"—a bizarre autonomy, to be sure, which cannot be enjoyed absent crippling dependency—yes, the mind does boggle—on the other hand, we see tens of millions of unemployables, exploding debt, a dwindling number of productive citizens concerned with little besides self-gratification, the more immediate the better. Observe all that, I say, and might anyone maintain with a straight face that the two conservatisms are unconnected?
I agree, intuitively, that both conservatisms must be held together. But to show this adequately requires careful research and substantial scholarly support, not a few inflammatory comments in Commentary, to convince thinking people of this country. We need less loud rhetoric and more careful academic work from our side to make a difference in the long run. And a little modesty and civil language would also help. Democrats are people, too.
n
"Obama won the 2012 election far more than the Republicans lost it". Not true. The GOP lost it for several reasons. When the Republicans GET RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS, they will get more women, more Jews, and more of the sensible NON fanatics to vote for them. Even some of the lying crooked media might lean a bit to the right. But, of course, that will never happen because religious fanatics never give up. They are like suicide bombers. They would rather die.
I beg to differ. The core of the Republican party today are the evangelicals. They provide the muscle, the money and the votes. If you take religion out of the equation totally, you lose those votes and with it, elections. The Republican party has a major dilemna- whither to go? Obama amd the democrats seem to have enough votes between the disparate liberal (in thought and conduct) blocks to win elections-for now. The one block that the Republicans must, absolutely must get , are the Hispanics. Culturally conservative,economically industrious, they can be courted and won- see George Bush. Same with Asians. If they can only improve their appeal to these blocks by a few points (say taking 40 rather thirty percent) they will again win naitonal elections. See the ascendancy of Marco Rubio, Cruz, Nikky Haley, Sandoval, Susanna Martinez and other minorities- they will be the saviors of the Republican party-and the nation.
George Bush didn't win among "Hispanics". And Romney didn't lose because he didn't get enough "Hispanics". Or Asians. Or Blacks. He lost because he didn't get enough votes where there were votes to be gotten, and that's at the margins, not deep inside the Democrat coalition.
Not necessarily religion but intolerance for the non-religious. I believe in live and let live. Nobody can claim moral superiority. That and idiotic statements about rape caused fear among women. Even my very supportive daughter almost voted for Obama. n nAlso, the Republicans should have agreed to higher taxes on high income individuals to force them to finally agree to real reductions in discretionary spending , as a first step to fiscal solvency. n nHowever, that said, I am not that despondent that we lost. Now the ball is entirely in Obama's and the Democrats' court to reduce spending. Chances are they will fail miserably and be thrown out big time in 2016. In 2004 when Bush won, I also felt that it was a pyrrhic victory and I was right about that
"Also, the Republicans should have agreed to higher taxes on high income individuals to force them to finally agree to real reductions in discretionary spending , as a first step to fiscal solvency. " n nYou would think, wouldn't you, that that would be beyond reach of cavil? You would also be wrong. What is always forgotten, however, is that historically, as far as the eye can see, an increase in taxes imposed solely for the sake of raising revenues is ALWAYS used to indulge novel opportunities for spending. It does not seem to matter if tax rises are, on paper, traded for spending cuts. The cuts NEVER HAPPEN! Or if they do, they are rather soon overruled and/or superseded. Each dollar raised by taxes has ALWAYS been used to avoid a cut and never to reinforce one. A MORE perverse outcome is scarcely to be imagined; nor a LESS surprising one: the taxes raised—assuming for the moment that there is no overall loss in revenue due to raising them, hardly an uncontroversial assumption—those taxes, I say, are now in the hands of the same people who advocated cutting spending. In other words that money is now at hand to buy votes, as it were, in a future election. A tension between principle and self-interest is not only unavoidable but, as I have already said, as a matter of record it has always been resolved by spending the money more profligately on, for instance, new "programs," the appetite and imagined need for which is voracious, exacerbating the very problem the tax revenue was intended to mitigate. n nThat has always been Grover Norquist's argument for taking an extremely hard and skeptical look at ANY new taxes. Let's have a decade or so, he suggests, of spending cuts only; and THEN, a commitment to frugality having been established, we may safely think about raising taxes. n nI for one find his reasoning quite persuasive.
While what you say is true, raising taxes on the very rich will not hurt them (although it does the economy no good) and would disarm that very potent Democrat argument.
Ronald Reagan was against abortion in the case of rape, and it was never used as an albatross against him beacuse the pro-abortion militants weren't the cackling mad-dog fanatics they have become in which they will perpetually sieze any attempt to mask their extremism on the abortion issue, which is indistinguishable ultimately from China's abortion policies. And you have to be a certified moron to think ANY politician would be able to get a measure passed eliminating abortion in the case of rape. I have no sympathy for anyone who was suckered on that point.
Neither Akin nor Mourdock had any chance of doing much about abortion, but their supporters need to answer for nominating tone deaf morons.
yes, I very much agree. I'm a pro-choice Republican and let me tell you, that's a lonely place to be. Romney should have made it perfectly clear that he was not going to try to make contraceptives illegal–there were people who honestly believed that–and he should have also mentioned that Roe is the law of the land. it might have wee-weed up the hardliners, but the fact is we are a pluralistic nation. they need to understand that.
Roe isn't law, it's juridical aggression. And anyone who "honestly believed" that a Romney win would result in contraceptives being made illegal is an unreachably Democrat cretin. n nAlso, as someone who is in favor of allowing adult contraception and almost all abortions I nonetheless cringe in embarassment for anyone who thinks "pro-choice" is an acceptable locution.
Yep.
A long time ago, controversial former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards supposedly said that he only way he could lose an election would be "to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy". That is, only some extreme action on the part of an incumbent of any political party can cause him or her to lose office. The fact that the overwhelming number of incumbents won re-election last night, alas, makes Edwards's alleged statement all too true.
Nope, I'm afraid that when it comes to liberal Democrats, being caught with live boys would be something that would win them praise. Sure didn't affect the careers of Gerry Studds or Barney Frank!
it's lying and being caught that's more damaging than otherwise. n nbeing a closeted homosexual and getting your silly self arrested while trolling in a men's room as Larry Craig did, is quite a bit more foolish and damaging than is being openly homosexual
How about being openly homosexual while tolerating a male brothel being run out of your apartment in Washington?
And even if a Democrat has to resign due to a sex scandal, he'll still count on being regarded as a hero with a bright political future or get a perky gig as a talk show host (see Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner). And of course BIll Clinton is the ultimate poster boy for how with Democrats, being an immoral misogynistic pervert is considered a badge of honor (building in the footsteps of Teddy Kennedy who could cause a woman's death and suffer no repercussions)
I wasn't necessarily referring to a sex scandal. I wrote that only a drastic situation can cause an incumbent to lose.
aside from the fact that there's no truth to the cahrge that the apartment was a brothel, there's also no proof that Frank was aware and tolerated anything…….. n nwhich isn't hard to understand as the story, when published, concerned stuff that was 20 years in the past n nkinda hard to penalize a guy fro something that wasn't about him and which was way past expiration date for a scandal
You're simply wrong there. Take your head out of the sand: there was plenty of proof. Frank admitted to as much in the well of the House, where he would never have ended up if the case was 20 years in the past. His boyfriend's carryings-on were contemporaneous.
Mr. Tobin writes with an authoritative tone that defeating the president was always going to be a long-shot. If that's the case, so far as I recall, why are we reading this for the first time in one of Mr. Tobin's myriad posts on the election? Punditry is one of the biggest losers in this game, particularly when it's based on trash talk.
Let us say that Barak Obama represents where America is today? Maybe no conservative candidate could have beaten him? Bill Clinton told Tony Blair that the future is in left of center progressive politics. Probably Clinton is right. What that means is that conservative parties and candidates have to do a lot better. It's not a good thing for conservative governments to do a lot of slash and burn when they get into office and then be about 10% more efficient in government. They need to drastically improve the economy and avoid excessive slash and burn and be at least 20% more efficient. They have to be head and shoulders above their social democratic opponents. The Swedish social democrats were in office for generations. This sort of thing can happen.
"Slash and burn"? The Repubs nominated Mr. Romneycare. What are you talking about?
I bought into the hype that Obama was going to lose and that Republicans would take back the Senate. I was wrong. I have long suspected that the pundits on FOX News don't believe anything they say.
Arrivederci Mitt: JERUSALEM AIN’T FOR SALE. nObama garners 70 percent of Jewish vote. What’s happened to Plan-B Morons? Now that Obama won second term 303/207. How about closing down Fox-News for good? I can’t wait to see Republicans, Teeebaagerzz & Israelifirsters Looosers faces. Black voters "not as rah-rah," but "really focused" for Obama. Filipino Baklas were the only minority who voted for Mitt Romney now they lost Local Sponsors Fetus export outta UAE. To run America Obama & Dems must cull Republicans, Teeebaagerzz & Israelifirsters outta HOUSE forever. Bye Mitt: JERUSALEM-CAPITAL-OF-ISRAEL. MY ASS! nAnd now shut-up, sit-down & listen to Jonathan S. Tobin is Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine Legends of GoogledJunk, WikiTrash, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation! Your discretion is advised nTHE CONSERVATIVES’ OBAMA DELUSION
d'accord!
thank you for putting up with my Picassoic attitude. nAll that is necessary for triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.. Edmund Burke. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Time is up! Standup like a man or die like a coward 1000 times. nObaid Karki is a Sexagenarian UAE Paleoconservative Provocateur Arabspringer with a Picassoic Attitude, Blackbelt Diehart Paulite Constitutionalist Libertarian, Diogenesist, Spinoziste, Qutbist, Kabbalist, Pantheon, Hexalingual, Automath, Antitribal-Gentiles-Cabal, Unaffiliated to State or any Religiosity Cult and Seigniorage Banksters Sharia Scam. In short. I am the one your mom never warned you about. n
Despite the wishful thinking of social conservatives, the election was lost because of the vast number of people like me, regarding Obama as a failed President and yet voting for him because we did not want Romney appointing social conservatives to the courts – when the GOP decides it is time to get out of the bedroom and leave women's bodies alone, it will return to the center and again become electable. If the social conservatives were so strong, they should confer with Senators Akin and Mourdock.
Still don't get it, do you? To quote an article I read recently, here is why Romney lost: n n"The fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn’t even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West." n nIn short, he was preaching a vision of America that is repugnant to Americans.
Pretty much wall-to-wall, question-begging, ad hominem, and particularly simple-minded rubbish. . . . Correction. Strike "Pretty much." Stet the rest.
Perfect. You still don't get it, and you just proved it. By way of reminder, you lost the election. Now figure out why.
No. You don't get it. You submit an unattributed quotation that consists of nothing more than flat assertion, name calling, and self-serving characterization, utterly devoid of argument. If you have an argument to make, make it on your own or shut up. Standing on a soapbox reading CliffNotes, as it were, is fairly unpersuasive. n nAs for figuring out why "we" lost the election, I really should not have to point this out to anyone over the age of four, but possibly it's because power ebbs and flows in a republic. It's probably for much the same reason that "you" lost the elections of 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984, 1980—Do I really need to go on, nitwit? n nIt is of the nature of non-hereditary political power that it regularly changes hands. If you had an ounce of historical sense instead of merely an ATTITUDE you would know that. What? Do you imagine that because the Democrats won the presidency in 2008 and 2012, two whole times in a row, that they are poised on the brink of some sort of thousand-year Reich? Between 1861 and 1933, 72 years, a Democrat was in the White House for 16 of them. Since 1933 there have been seven Democrat and five Republican presidents serving, respectively, for 48 and 32 years. I hope you are sitting down and old enough to take the news without bawling your eyes out, but in future the presidency will change hands again and again. And, say, what does any of it have to do with a loser like you anyway, who ostentatiously parts his name in the middle? YOU haven't been elected to anything, thank God. Good grief, grow up, child. Go back to bagging groceries or delivering newspapers or whatever the hell it is you do. Intelligent commentary is really not your strongest suit.
You didn't lose because of “ebb and flow.” Nobody loses because of “ebb and flow.” When the left has lost, they lost for good reasons. Same for the right. But if the right doesn't understand those reasons, it will lose again and again.For most of my long life, I voted Republican. But lately the party has adopted “mean and crazy” as its base. Anti-evolution, anti-immigration, anti-education, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-union, anti-government, anti-Medicare, anti-women — the party became so “anti” it began to scare me. It really has seemed to take on a Taliban-like, fundamentalist personality. Those right wing candidates — Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain — were so off-the-wall, I was amazed anyone could take them seriously. But the right wing did, which says much about the right wing.And what about the birthers? And Donald Trump. And Clint Eastwood. Every party has its share of nut-cases, but the Democrats didn't feature such people.Abortion to save a woman's life? No way. Let her die. Abortion from rape? Nope, make her carry the child for nine months, then raise the child for the rest of her life. Serves her right for getting raped.And then there are those Tea Party candidates. We had one in Illinois — Walsh — truly insane. Akin? Nuts. Florida's Allen West? Bonkers.And then there is FOX news. Yikes! Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh. And no, the liberal commentators were not nearly as nutty as the FOX news crazies.Finally, the party put up a candidate who had no beliefs, who switched positions repeatedly and who would say anything, just to please whomever was in the audience. Extreme right? “I'm extreme right.” Moderate? “I'm moderate.” Pro-choice? “I'm pro-choice.” Pro-life? “I'm pro-life.” The list goes on and on. To this day, I don't know what Romney really believed. Even his home state, Massachusetts, voted against him. And this was the best the Republicans had???One thing the Republicans simply must learn in order to become a viable party, again: America does not want religious fundamentalism. Our ancestors came here to get away from church dictatorship. So long as you kow-tow to the ultra-right, gun-toting, religious nuts, you will lose — at it won't be because of “ebb and flow.” Americans basically are decent people. We still believe in “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Republicans seem to have forgotten the American heritage.The Republican party changed, so I changed my voting pattern.So long as my former party thinks it lost because of ebb and flow, rather than recognizing it lost because America rejected “mean and crazy,” it is doomed. And I truly am sorry to see it.Learn from your failures rather than denying them.Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Simply more rant about individuals, not Republican Party principles, rant and outright distortion of the party's position and attitude toward, for example, abortion and immigration. It is a simple-minded left-wing platitude that Republicans are religious fanatics, a shortcut to political hysteria that ignores the actual record n nFor certain bigots, you seem to be one, any religious claim more demanding than what may be posed at a meeting of the Kiwanis Club is threatening. What are you banging on about? Dozens of States have been governed by Republicans for decades. They are nothing remotely like theocracies, though it suits the political hysteric to think that citizens in Alabama, say, are but weeks away from outright Fascism. n nThe crony capitalism, practiced in Washington, the grubby "green energy" rent seekers, hand-in-glove cooperation—truly a spectacle to wonder at—between the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at the trillion-dollar level of entanglement, and the handout of tax dollars approved for reasons not a bit more persuasive than who it is you know, which means to whom did you give money—those policies fit with admirable precision a sense of fascismo that Mussolini and Franco would have applauded in a second. Do you really imagine that the those sorts of corruption, which are real threats to self-governance, are the policies of the Republican Party? You're barking mad. Say, you don't still buy into the Democratic Party being the "party of the working man," do you? I grew up listening to that tripe, which ceased to have a tether to reality decades ago. n nThe Democratic Party is deployed in a triumvirate. Leg one: masses of able-bodied but ill-educated boobs with their hands out for food stamps, rent subsidies, utility support payments, free child care, and, coming soon: free college tuition—the list could be extended virtually ad lib without breaking a sweat—who having been made plain unemployable by attending schools in cities CONTINUOUSLY controlled by the Democratic Party for three quarters of a century, by teachers unworthy of the name, whose motivating professional preoccupations are pretty much identical to those of a union electrician, which is to say, wages, benefits, hours (I taught in ghetto public schools for 15 years, so I am in a position to have known such typical "public servants" quite intimately), and little else, who are protected by unions who are protected by Democrats, and devil take the hinder-most when it comes to educating children. n nThose are the catastrophes daily visited on the real poor quite literally destroying their future prospects—And you? What gets your outrage brimming to overflowing is a precatory plank concerning abortion in cases of surpassing rarity, and even there you get the facts wrong, which are about as much of a threat to this vicious little right to choose your party is plain dedicated to up to and including the moment of birth. Obscenities like that, to protect which the Democrats have sacrificed every semblance of decency and moral proportion, plus, lest we forget, the 50-million fetuses, 50-million human beings, aborted since Roe, well, those, do not merit even a passing mention in your catalog of "mean and crazy" horrors.
Apparently, the Republican's loss taught you nothing. So you defend a losing strategy and would change nothing — and continue to lose, as the white, adult male population declines proportionately.Truly pitiful.
And apparently you are back to dumping flat assertion and name calling into the thread in hopes that readers will think it is legitimate commentary. n nI responded in some detail to the malarkey you submitted under the guise of an argument against . . . . God knows what. Childish fears? Nothing rational at any rate. But at least it was an attempt on your part at an argument. You on the other hand have now responded to NOTHING I actually wrote. n nWhy do you bother?
I bother, because I hope the Republicans will learn from this defeat, and make appropriate changes. If the party goes into denial mode, it will continue to lose.Ask yourself, “Why did we lose and what should we change?” That's all I suggest.And be honest with yourself.
[cont.] Leg two: the various government bureaucracies, State and Federal, who exist ONLY to service the ever-growing needs of those in leg one. Here we find immured, as if in amber since the Paleozoic Era, the true parasites of modern American life. Simultaneously immune to hard work AND Impossible to fire, enjoying a surfeit of benefits that the working taxpayers who support them (that would include you, einstein) can only imagine: plentiful sick leave that they are professionally dedicated to taking advantage of, sick or hale, ever longer paid vacation time, paid holidays, comprehensive medical and dental insurance, even "free" eyeglasses! Also worth a mention are guaranteed raises regardless of performance. Guaranteed regardless! It simply does not get better than that job-wise. And what about those fat pensions providing each and every one of the drones the opportunity to retire after as few as 10 years?—Believe me, they do—What about those bloated and unsustainable pensions that, it does seem, are weekly bankrupting cities and towns across the country as well as—also coming soon—entire States? The legislatures of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the current basket-case States (CA, NY, IL, RI, NJ, MI) have been in Democratic Party hands for four or five decades (though one or two recently have woken up). In California, you know, there are 10,000 very special retirees from State work who all by themselves drain the coffers of a billion dollars a year! That's "billion" with a B!! That's year in and year out from age 62!!! It is plain as paint that the clear interest of useless government time-servers lies in expanding the entitlements that accompany membership in leg one, so they strive daily to augment the minions of dependency. n nThose are the actual problems abroad in America today, those the REAL threats to prosperity and, inevitably, to liberty and democracy. Please notice, they do not include the paranoid, otherworldly movie fantasy of being burned at the stake by religious fanatics on which you squander your capacity for legitimate upset. Not coincidentally, attacking those same in-your-face evils is also pretty much what motivates the Tea Party, something about which they have not been exactly silent for the past three years, so it is little short of amazing that you do not mention it in your indictment of them. And what any of that has to do with meanness and hatred, I'd like to know. n nLeg three: the smug elites in academia and the zealous technocrats in government, who, I think it well worth pointing out, include on their rolls a depressing number of lawyers of the ambulance-chasing variety (remember a certain John Edwards, do you?), the heirs of Herbert Croly, Lincoln Steffens, and the rancid rest of the arrogant, we-know-better-what's-good-for-you "progressives," who since World War I have beavered away devising policy that suckles the members of leg one while shoving the snouts of the members of leg two deep into the public trough. n nThat group, the elites, is doubtless the most contemptible leg of all. Our current president, whom I'd happily describe as incompetent except that it might be misconstrued as a compliment by comparison to what might be said with greater justification, is a gold-star member of the class of elite windbags, whose vacillations and deceptions on any subject you might care to mention, from public financing of elections to the prison camp at Guantanamo to the Fast & Furious gun-walking debacle to Solyndra and numerous other Obama-bundler-led firms of the order Rodentia and class Insecta that went bankrupt to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, sans liability or so much as a tear stain on their credit reports, continuing right down to the elaborate and fantastic imposture of a Kabuki dance that premiered two months ago in Libya, all of that and a good deal more, render Mitt Romney steadfastness incarnate by comparison. With a mess like that on your plate screaming for attention, why do you persist in returning to the nonproblem of too many people reading too many bibles, again and again "like a dog returning to his vomit [Proverbs]"? n nNow I ask you: What is "decent" about any of that?
I not agree Rodger, but I fill that Republican approach to immigrants is not a Christian suitable position as Jesus clearly teach to help the poor and the foreigner resident at least. nThe abortion and one child policy of China and the imposition to others country by Obama left wind is not a Christian one as is killing life and allowed women's suffering as the Chinese one forbicide abortion with US dollars support! nHow Obama is saying God help America! Which God is calling? satan! Is no way that a Christian God will not respond to that challenger! nWhat US had experience in many natural disaster will increase! Is the only way that will change the immoral conduct of many American citizens and left them look at their conscience. nThe morality of America and not only, had been at one of worse stage. nBefore you call me bigot, wait for a little while and see! Grace n
Contrary to what a lot of people think, this election does not so much signify a left turn by the American people so much as it is a state of confusion. After all, at the same time that they re-elected the most leftwing president we have probably ever had, they re-elected one of the more conservative Houses of Representatives. I think that, facing uncertainty, confusion and not knowing what to do, they voted to stay in the same place. When you are lost in the woods, this is generally a good idea. Those of us who think we know the way to safety are, of course, dismayed. The vast majority of people who are classified as minorities voted for Obama. Romney made them feel uncomfortable in a way that George Bush did not. Michael Medved made the point that if Romney had won the same percentage of the minority vote that Bush did, he would have won. Romney was unable to convey that he understood minority issues and that his administration would not be a closed white man's club. Bush did a much better job because he had courted that vote as Governor of Texas and his brother had courted it as Governor of Florida. Those communities knew the Bushes from before the campaign. n nThe Dems can afford to come around to minority communities every two years and gather up the votes while doing nothing. Republicans cannot. Telemundo gave Romney a great chance to do something with the Fast and Furious issue and he didn't do it. The Republican party now has to see courting minorities as a 24/7 project. And the project is pretty simple really. It is to reach out to minority communities, many of which are pro-life for the most part, and persuade them, as those two republicans persuaded Susannah Martinez, that they are already, really, Republican. If they believe this is the land of opportunity, if they or their parents or grandparents are what Ronald Reagan called "citizens by choice", who came here to work hard, save, invest and enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer, they belong in the Republican party. That must be an ongoing round the clock message from the Republican party. Luigi Zingales, has written about a People's Capitalism. The Republican leadership should read it and put it in the platform.
Perhaps, the Republicans contrary to their claim, were never interested in supporting Romney because they thought that they could "easily" win in 2016 and did not want to wait till 2020! nThe far left did not win because they were extreme but because they were back on the campaign trail the day after Obama 2008 INAUGURATION! nIf the conservative keep extreme positions they will loose in "16 & "20. nObama Islamophilia could damage significantly the international position of the US. nWhat about the freedom of speech? nObama willing to make a deal with Iran may give Iran the ability to produce U! Then what! nThe American Jews have confirmed their anti Zionist position. nThe Repub. have no idea what the far left has in reserve for this country. They better be very much concerned!! Unexpected events can hit them and they will claim that they did not see that coming. nThey have been warned!!!!
Conservatism cannot and should not be reduced to expediting the most efficient allocation of capital.
I did not say that I was a conservative, but rather a Jew who finds free markets to be a moral factor in civilization that uplifts the toiling masses.
The Republicans lost for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that they completely underestimated Obama's intelligence and political skills. Another reason was the sharp right turn in the Republican party that forced their candidate to embrace a social agenda far out of the mainstream. A third reason is that in spite of conservative attempts to portray Obama as a foreign-born socialist, he has governed as a moderate. In fact, 50 years ago he probably would be pegged as a Rockefeller Republican, rather than as a Democrat. In addition, the Republicans have refused to acknowledge that the face of America has changed. We are more diverse than at any time in the past. The failure of the Republican Party to cope with the changing electorate has left them vulnerable.
The Democrats did not define Willard. The Repubicans did it during the Primary. You do remember the Repbulican Primaries don't you? Of course defeat was a rejection of Willard and the Republicans. It was all part of a consipracy that has now come to include the pollsters on top of everybody else. Conservatives preach personal responsbility. Strangely, when it comes to examining their own behavior, psuedo-conservatives like the people who write these columns blame everybody else and became victims par excellence.
I don't know of anyone who thought O was "historic"….not in the least. But, getting rid of religion, denigrating decent, honest and honorable people and spewing pure hate for decades, lying, cheating and stealing are what caused was you see here. The media supported the Leftists in the country and, of course, the fact that nearly 50% of voters are now takers, not workers say a great deal. No America is not the country I was raised in, but, to be fair, we were asleep at the wheel since the progs merged with the dems the l930's. Until the Internet we had little idea just how bad this country had gotten. The rules, moral and ethics were removed by the progressive and we must now pay the penalty for not standing up for our values. We ate our own and paid the price….remember the premaries!!
At least half of America realises that Romney represents the interests of the 1% . nRomney may have maligned the 47% but that did not stop a big portion of them voting for him. nCan the Republican party put forward a candidate who will represent the American people and not only the Koch brothers?
Let me get this, are you honestly saying that Obama was re-elected because Americans felt bad toppling an African-American president after one term? That they ignored everything he stood for, the state of the economy, unemployment, the supposed loathed Obamacare, his supposed hostility to Israel? That there weren't a few Americans who probably voted against him simply because he was black? That voters even strengthened his party in Congress in their attempt to be politically sensitive? Really now. n nWhat Tobin's commentary shows is the inability of the ideological right to accept that they represent only a part of the electorate and, as it appears, not even a majority. If their man loses, well, that can only be laid to some extraneous factor like race or an unfriendly media (which was some reason was unable to stop Republicans from winning more presidential contests in recent history than they lost). n nThe depth of the right's problem is illustrated by Benghazi, a minor incident that the right is trying to make into an historic event on which the election could have turned. n n What happened in 1983 when U.S. troops in Lebanon were attacked by suicide bombers? Under the leadership of the divine Mr Reagan, American troops packed up and left (sorry, "redeployed" as it was explained then). Imagine if he had been a Democrat? n
I'm an Italian and Australian citizen, I was hoping for Romney as is pro life and had more economical skill. I wondering after the most expensive campaign how many American had vote. nAnother worry is how the counting and especially double vote had monitor as normally who are in power is in control and can manipulate especially when not Identification is require. nThe positive note is that Republican had strength their position in the Congress! nObama had Von because is appealing to social minority that are marginalize, which are not supported by Republican, they need to consider some change and open up to the poor! n
Unfortunately, the great majority of those that voted for Obama have the intellect of aindless insect!
Class warfare works – it always has. The Democrats have painted themselves as "for the little guy" and the Republicans as for the "big ______ (fill in the blank)". Reagan was successful in deflecting that by taking that discussion area away from the Democrats. But the "them and us" mentality didn't go away, it only receded below the level of conciousness for a time. Except for George W. Bush, who had some success in that area for the same reasons that others couldn't stand him. He was, in peoples' minds, a cowboy, a wise guy, and he had a demeanor that grated against those who are oh so very nice but appealed to that fractious segment who do not view themselves as "them". Class warfare works and the Democrats used it very effectively. Republicans need to figure out how to change the discussion in their favor or get ready to be a permanent minority. nRedCar