Short takes
Virginia’s GOP blues
Now that the 2012 election is history, on to the 2013 governor’s race! The one between Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for the Republican Party nomination. …
A wider intraparty war
The Virginia GOP’s internal dispute mirrors a battle on the national level for the soul of the party that started even before the presidential election results were in. …
Goode’s odd run
As if the rancor between conservatives and ultra-conservatives were not enough, Romney supporters in Virginia had another worry about their candidate’s prospects: the long-shot — make that the long, long-shot — candidacy of former Rep.Virgil Goode. …
November 10, 2012 - 8:44 AM
I would argue that the biggest spoiler for the GOP was Mitt Romney. The Republicans once again nominated a liberal disguised as a conservative posing as a moderate to counter the CPUSA/Dem Party offering of a liberal pretending to be a moderate. Only on the self-delusional planet of the liberal intelligentsia and democrat sycophants was the Romney-Ryan ticket to the right of anything.
Conservatives weren’t sucked in, and are growing tied of the woo-em-and-screw-em attitudes and tactics of the mainstream GOP.
Memo to Republicans: if you want conservative votes, nominate a conservative, and not a thinly disguised northern liberal.
You would hopefully admit that it was hard to know where precisely a weather vane “stands” on much of anything. Maybe Romney should have debated himself for a while before he presented so many mixed or confusing messages to voters. Or got caught being honest to his peers.
I think you need to come to grips that this election was not lost because Conservatives were not in love with Romney. Obama hate alone more than made up for the few who stayed home or voted “other”. “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line”. You clearly do not get the truth of this election if you believe it was to nominate a “real conservative” next time.
It was pretty easy to see where Romney stood…just look at his actions, not his words…expanded state functions, state run health care, all liberal benchmarks. The two have always contradicted each other.
No, Conservatives did not like Romney; don’t confuse republicans with conservatives, Sandi. The two are not synonyms.
The claim that it was merely “Obama hate” (a phrase which is, fortunately for those who sling it about, almost impossible to prove and quantify) is to posit that the ideologically neutered who hate Obama love (or at least tolerate) him more than they hate him…else they’d have voted for anyone, even an unreconstructed northern liberal, to oust him. That just doesn’t make sense.
It is true, as you say, that the ideologically bereft either fall in love or in line (a distinction without a difference)…but conservatives do not (I would argue that honest liberals do not either). Again, ‘republican’ and ‘conservative’ are not synonymous.
“It was pretty easy to see where Romney stood…”
Over here..and over there…then there…and back here…
To say Romney lost because he wasn’t conservative enough is balderdash, he lost because he had a one point plan. “Elect me, I’ll promise you anything.”
4 – he governed as a liberal, Art. That was an indication to anyone that paid attention that he was no conservative.
And yes, he promised everything to everyone…which is not an appeal to conservatives.
Parse as you like, if the claim that black people overwhelmingly voted “for” Obama due to race (and many, even here have claimed it), it is equally fair to claim that the white males who so largely voted “for” Romney did so because he was not black. Obama hate is real and the misery manifest after the election (the “death” of America and the like) prove it. It is not remotely “impossible to prove and quantify”. The reality in America is that the “ideologically neutered” and the ignorant, racist and easily misled people are allowed to vote. We are not all informed, educated and well reasoned voters.
That YOU perceive and insist Romney is “an unreconstructed northern liberal” is clearly and absolutely IMO, not what those who voted for him thought. That just doesn’t make your case, it makes mine.
Are you trying to say that Conservatives stayed home and that is why Romney lost?
I do not believe there is any mystery and I do not believe that not being “conservative enough” was Romney’s problem. I just cannot see it.
“Mr. Obama was always significantly more trusted on qualities that matter to working Americans. In fact, independent voters in our survey, by 54 to 40, said it was more important for a president to have “the willingness to fight for middle-class families” rather than a “technical understanding of the economy.”
And when asked what the key to growing our economy was, nearly two in three voters said it was building a strong middle class over creating a “healthy climate for business.”
The point is not that Americans don’t believe in a strong private sector; they do. But our data showed that they also believe that employers care less about those who work for them than they did five years ago. Moreover, voters don’t assume that the success of corporations translates into their own security — only 18 percent strongly agree that “the middle class always does well when big corporations do well.”
Republicans lost the election by being on the wrong side of all these issues. Their current path risks marginalizing them further as a party that cannot grow beyond its extreme wing — especially as the electorate grows increasingly diverse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/obama-won-on-values-not-demographics.html?pagewanted=all
“White Voters
Obama 39%
Romney 59%
African–American Voters
Obama 93%
Romney 6%
Hispanic Voters
Obama 71%
Romney 27%
Other (e.g. Asian, Pacific Islander)
Obama 73%
Romney 26%”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/08/demographics-of-election-2012-behind-the-numbers-part-i/
I cannot vouch for the demographics but if they are correct, that is a pretty noticeable indictment IMO.
Yes, Sandi, conservatives stayed home and that’s why Romney lost. The GOP came out, but not the conservatives.
And really…citing a New York Times editorial, practically a paid agent of the state, as a source only validates my point. You’ll see similar analyses from reliable GOP sources that are saying the GOP has to move to the left…they well continue to be blind to their problems.
2012 was the Republican’s swan-song. The Reagan revolution is dead, Mitt played one last time to the rich old white guys and lost. The demographic is steadily shrinking, unless the GOP makes a serious effort to attract minorities they are finished. Can you imagine what a landslide this would have been for the president had the Republicans not suppressed the vote?
So the TP/R’s should be blaming you for Romney’s loss? Well then, thank you very much!
Seriously, we need to either agree that links are not required or stop pretending that bias (perceived or real) indicates they are wrong. It doesn’t.
The New York Times may be progressive, but a “paid agent of the state” speaks to a conspiracy mentality that should be beneath intelligent folks.
Maybe if their are similar analysis on both “sides” of the media means we should mayhap pay attention?
They will not swing to a stronger “conservative” when a stronger right winger is all they want IMO. I do not yet equate conservative with right winger, but it is a thin line from where I stand. A true Conservative will not hand things to business either.
Sandi, if the neoCon/GOPers are blaming me and other they err spectacularly on the following front: the assumption that conservatives should blindly flock to the GOP’s liberal candidate just because he is represented by an elephant instead of an ass. But it is unlikely they do blame me because they still are blind to why they lost. Since I cared for neither Obama nor Romney I don’t care if they do blame me, though it would be refreshing if they actually did figure it out.
When they stray so far from conservative ideals – small government, humble foreign policy, sound money, free market – to the opposite (large intrusive state, belligerence abroad, central banking) they will not get conservatives. They, though, think they need to move to the left, to the ground occupied by their ideological comrades in the CPUSA/Dem Party ranks…thinking that those constituencies will suddenly start supporting them instead. It’s asinine.
My point on the NYT is to point out that the media – whether from the left or the right (Fox “News”) – don’t get it either, and repeat the mantra that the GOP is a collection of right wing extremists. Being basically unimaginative and incurious and more court reporter than reporter, the media repeat the lies.
I guess, to be clear, we should clarify connotations: I generally use ‘right wing’ and ‘conservative’ mostly as synonyms (neither is a dirty word, in other words), but I make a clear distinction between both those terms and ‘republican’.
I agree that a conservative will not “hand things to business” but Romney is a perfect example of a republican engaging in crony capitalism (no, not the free market). Not a conservative value.
To clarify, Sandi, I didn’t stay home, but neither did I vote for Romney (or Obama).
Yes, perhaps clarification of our POV on terms is in order.
I consider right wingers to be the extreme right. The hate filled, judgmental, if not outright racist, certainly fearful and suspicious of any minority. The Fascists, Dictators, Authoritarian and Christian Right reside here.
I consider conservatives to be the champions of small ineffectual government, isolated foreign policy, what they believe is “sound money”, what they believe is a “free market”; socially awkward regarding civil rights and discrimination to say the least. Libertarians and true minimalist purists reside here.
I do not think this nation will elect either or a combination of the two for President again.
Republicans and Democrats are merely points on the spectrum of our political structure with differing ideas of moderate to hard line on every issue and policy we deal with without being led by their extremes in the end.
Left wingers are those who might well be among the Communist, Socialist, Marxist and devout liberals that the right wing hates and fears.
Extremes and the many under them, are what is harming this nation’s viability, capability and the path forward. They both try to manipulate the voters and the systems. I am sick of them both.
There was no way to really be sure what Romney would be if elected, but it is beyond doubt that Obama is no left winger.
To #8 (Sandi): The article you quoted said, “In fact, independent voters in our survey, by 54 to 40, said it was more important for a president to have ‘the willingness to fight for middle-class families’ rather than a ‘technical understanding of the economy’.”
That may be the most depressing thing I’ve read this entire year. Having noble intentions is all well and good, but without competence, well-intentioned efforts often do more harm than good. Alas, emotion-based politics has triumphed over rational thought.
In the past three years, real wages and savings have fallen: http://seekingalpha.com/article/310575-real-wage-deflation-savings-rate-decline-raise-yellow-flags. In the past three years, income inequality has increased sharply, reaching highs not seen since the Great Depression: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?_r=0.
So yes, Obama has been “fighting for the middle class”. And doing so rather badly as measured by multiple key metrics. A solid “technical understanding” of the economy would surely help, but we’ve seen problems in that regard for some time: http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/romerbernsteinoct12.jpg. Unfortunately, voters who seek leaders with technical understanding appear to be in the minority. [Sigh...]
Maybe you should look back over the last two decades to see how unfair your “past three years” selective look is. You may want the nation to forget the economic crash and the repercussions, but we didn’t and we won’t.
We need a President to fight for us because Congress has not.
To #16 (Sandi): I did look at the past two decades. Perhaps you should too. Specifically, look at the SSA link again, and check out the chart at the very bottom. If you look at the “median-to-average wage” ratios (which we want to be high, not low), you’ll see that the overall trend during the Bush years (a 1.1% drop over 8 years) was less bad than either the Clinton years (a 3.0% drop over 8 years) or Obama years (a 1.4% drop over 3 years).
And I haven’t forgotten the crash. However, the recession’s been over for 3.5 years now. What happened to that strong economic recovery the administration predicted (with annual growth rates above 4%)? A president that fights for us sounds nice, but I’d be happier if he fought for effective policies.
You credit the bubble and dismiss the crash. Typical. I do not think you will see anything you do not want to see in any chart or story.
From your NYT link:
“The recession seems to have cemented the country’s income and wealth inequality, not reversed it. The top 10 percent earn a larger share of overall income than they have since the 1930s. The earnings of the top 1 percent took a knock during the recession, but have bounced back. In contrast, the average working family’s income has continued to decline through the anemic recovery.“
To #18 (Sandi): You’re making my point for me: “The earnings of the top 1 percent took a knock during the recession, but have bounced back. In contrast, the average working family’s income has continued to decline through the anemic recovery.” If Obama were “fighting for the middle class” effectively, we would see better results than this.
Instead, we’ve gotten the weakest recovery since the Great Depression: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/economy-may-be-permanently-stuck-slow-growth-mode-918079, with middle class incomes in “continued decline”. Competence matters. Good intentions alone are not enough.
No President can “fight effectively” with an obstructive and destructive Congress. We are not a dictatorship. As George Bush lamented, that would make it a lot easier… When a system is inherently skewed to the rich, of course they “bounce back” first. THAT is the problem.