I just read his piece this morning and I regret that I didn´t comment on it when he posted it. But I did want to discuss it a bit further.
First, let me begin where RWN is wrong.
Romney did not have trouble with conservative turnout in 2012. I don´t know how anyone can continue to believe that after reading Sean Trende´s analysis here. Romney had trouble with -- as Trende calls them -- Ross Perot voters. These are rural, Northeastern voters that tend to be socially liberal and more populist. Had the Republicans nominated Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie, the GOP would have done much better. Having a rich, venture capitalist who couldn´t relate to the working class was the problem, not Romney´s conservatism. They would have done better with Pawlenty, but they still would have lost. Trende notes that these voters alone did not cost Romney the election, although they were the biggest problem for him. Republicans still must compete in minority communities to win nationally.
Again, there were no pockets of conservative voters that stayed home instead of voting for Romney. Talk Radio listeners continue to believe this despite all evidence, but it still isn´t true.
On the other hand, I kind of agree with RWN´s assertion that there needs to be a bright contrast with the Democrats, however, I am not sure if RWN would agree with the bright contrast that I suggest. The contrast that a majority of Americans really want has to do with the constant dysfunction that we see in Washington. The Republicans need to look to their governors for 2016 in stark contrast to the Washington creatures in both parties. A Christie-Martinez ticket would be a breath of fresh air in comparison to the Obama-Cruz-Paul wing of the political arena.
The United States is tired of watching grown men in Washington argue with each other like children all because they want more power. We need a bright contrast.
First, let me begin where RWN is wrong.
Romney did not have trouble with conservative turnout in 2012. I don´t know how anyone can continue to believe that after reading Sean Trende´s analysis here. Romney had trouble with -- as Trende calls them -- Ross Perot voters. These are rural, Northeastern voters that tend to be socially liberal and more populist. Had the Republicans nominated Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie, the GOP would have done much better. Having a rich, venture capitalist who couldn´t relate to the working class was the problem, not Romney´s conservatism. They would have done better with Pawlenty, but they still would have lost. Trende notes that these voters alone did not cost Romney the election, although they were the biggest problem for him. Republicans still must compete in minority communities to win nationally.
Again, there were no pockets of conservative voters that stayed home instead of voting for Romney. Talk Radio listeners continue to believe this despite all evidence, but it still isn´t true.
On the other hand, I kind of agree with RWN´s assertion that there needs to be a bright contrast with the Democrats, however, I am not sure if RWN would agree with the bright contrast that I suggest. The contrast that a majority of Americans really want has to do with the constant dysfunction that we see in Washington. The Republicans need to look to their governors for 2016 in stark contrast to the Washington creatures in both parties. A Christie-Martinez ticket would be a breath of fresh air in comparison to the Obama-Cruz-Paul wing of the political arena.
The United States is tired of watching grown men in Washington argue with each other like children all because they want more power. We need a bright contrast.
26 comments:
I can't comment on coke, but I'm a fan of big Koch.
Over six million missing white voters, from 2008 to 2012, while the black vote increased....according to Trende. And this was written in June. All votes had been counted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/21/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_revisited_118893.html
I agree with you that Romney's lack of conservative credentials wasn't the ONLY reason so many stayed home. He was just a flawed candidate in many ways. I've touched on all of them over the years.
....including the flaw that you mentioned in your post.
Here's my analysis:
In July of 2004, the U.S. population was 293 million. In July of 2012, it was 314 million.
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table
George Bush won 62.0 million votes in the 2004 presidential election, which was 21.2% of the U.S. population that year.
Mitt Romney won 60.9 million votes in the 2012 presidential election, which was 19.4% of the U.S. population that year.
If Romney in 2012 had won the same percentage of the U.S. population that Bush won in 2004 - 21.2% - he would have won 66.6 million votes, 700,000 MORE THAN the 65.9 million votes that Barack Obama won, assuming that all of Romney's added votes came from
stay-at-homes, and not from Obama's tally.
Bottom line: Romney COULD have won 5.7 million more votes and defeated Obama by 700,000 votes if he had just MAINTAINED Bush's vote total as a percentage of the U.S. population.
Obviously, Romney is not Bush, Obama is not John Kerry, and other variables came into play, but my point is nonetheless quite revealing about the tremendous missed opportunity by the 2012 Romney campaign.
It's also worth noting that in 2004, Kerry won 59.0 million votes, which was 20.1% of the U.S. population that year, still significantly better than Romney's 19.4% in 2012.
There's simply no getting around the fact that Romney's and the RNC's attempt to motivate/turn out conservative AND moderate voters in 2012 was a miserable failure.
And please, before anyone starts blaming "stupid", "lazy" and "insert epithet" voters for this failure, just remember that, by and large, these are the SAME VOTERS that Bush and the RNC somehow managed to motivate/turn out in 2004.
One final point. Obama's 2012 vote tally of 65.9 million was 21.0% of the U.S. population that year, slightly less than Bush's 21.2% in 2004, which BELIES the contention put forth by some on this site that Obama was an "unbeatable electoral juggernaut" in 2012.
Quite the contrary, Obama was EXTREMELY BEATABLE in 2012, but the GOP just didn't have the candidate, and the RNC leadership, to get the job done.
I would also add that Romney's weak competition in the primary is irrelevant. His supporters are famous for saying "Mitt was the best of the bunch." Even if that's the case, it has no bearing on 2016. The focus, going forward, needs to be on 2014 and 2016. That includes, whether you like it or not, an analysis of what went right in the 2012 general election, and what went wrong.
One more thing. Next to Chris Christie, Romney looks like Goldwater from where I sit. And Mitt didn't have the checkered past that Chtistie does. Why anyone thinks Christie can pull off against Hillary what Romney failed to do against the worst sitting president in history is really troubling.
"Mitt was the best of the bunch" - LOL - not anything to brag about, for sure. That was an awfully WEAK bunch.
Unless there's some skeleton in his closet that I don't know about, I'm pretty damn sure that if Senator Jim DeMint had decided to run for president in 2012, he not only would have won the GOP nomination, but would have won, and won convincingly, on November 6th as well.
And the hits just keep on coming...
I'm glad you agree, Joel. BTW, I just now noticed the first comment on this page - LOL - that's a real doozy.
The classic coke, new coke was not a very good analogy. Since Republicans were originally the big business party from Lincoln era to present, then you would think that Romney, the ruthless capitalist would be considered classic coke. The social cons came from the Democrat Party, so obviously they are not classic coke.
Sometimes, when I read comments that don't make sense, I find it's better to just let it go. In the past, I always felt the need to respond to everything, but there really isn't any need to in a lot of instances. This is more general in nature...not necessarily directed at any particular individual. ;)
Oh gosh. there's actually someone out there calling him/herself 'cruzcountry'? I can't even say it with a straight face!
"Romney did not have trouble with conservative turnout in 2012." I guess if Pablo keeps telling himself this enough he and his friends will eventually believe this non sense.
@ Anonymous 9:31 PM - You have a very STRANGE sense of humor.
@ cimbri -
"Coke" = traditional small government, free market, constitutional conservatism
"New Coke" = modern-day big government, crony capitalist, anti-constitutional conservatism
I hope that clears things up for you.
I prefer big Koch.
Mitt = caffeine free New Coke.
If I were courting, I'd be seeking out big Koch.
Obama = Jolt Cola. Enough caffeine to make you seriously ill.
McCain = Diet Pepsi. Democrat light.
Actually, I have a better one for Mitt.
Caffeine Free Vanilla Coke.
RM, are you trying to tell us something about yourself? Let me remind you this is a family oriented site.
New Coke, Classic Coke, Pepsi Free...who gives a shit? Romney was a horrific candidate that underwhelmed equal to the promises of the ObamaCare website. The sad part is that even in this late date of 2013, the 2016 line up doesn't look a whole lot better. Don't get me wrong...it's better but not by much. The Party couldn't enlist a candidate that could beat Obama...how do they intend on enlisting a candidate that will beat Hillary? With this current lineup, our only hope is that she does not run.
jerseyrepublican
Post a Comment