Mitt Romney for President -- Part Something plus One

I'd seriously like to give that post a standing ovation.
Thanks so very much for that.

 

Thank you for the interesting thoughts that are a break from usual Reep-affiliated media voices. I do have a few questions based on your observations.

Is there any possibility that the networks might have a solid case for why they called Ohio when they did? I ask because I saw races at all levels being called (for both Reeps and Dems) with barely 20% of precincts reporting and they all ended up being correctly called.

Let's say the networks HAD gotten wrong and then presumably corrected themselves fairly quickly. What would have been the practical impact, seeing as polls in Ohio were long closed by that time? Would the outcome in the western states have depended on the outcome in Ohio? Do you think the networks NOT calling Florida as quickly as they did Ohio helped or hurt Romney or did neither?

Say the networks did wait another hour or two. What practical impact would that have had on the election outcome? Could that have turned any of the western states?

Obviously, there are certain characteristics in Romney the man that made that easier than it probably should have been. Do you think that Americans having had two years to watch the "tea party" group in action may have had anything to do with the effectiveness the Dems had in painting Romney as an extremist?

In hindsight, which of the other primary candidates, if any, do you think would have done better than Romney?

It seems like the heaviest losses for the House (example: Joe Walsh), Senate, and some local races was concentrated among candidates who were identified most strongly with the "tea party". Obviously, not every tea partier lost, but it seems like they bore the brunt of the losses. Could the propensity to say "stupid things" be an artifact of the heavy overlap between that wing of the party and the religious base that is prone to make *ahem* "controversial" statements on wedge social issues like abortion, women's issues and gays?

And if the tea party favorites are replaced with moderates, what impact might that have on activating that portion of the party. In short, could the losses this past week have a negative impact on Reep turnout in the next election cycle?

Finally, while keeping in mind that candidates matter and the "rape" gaffes didn't help, is there anything regarding the candidates' or the party's stands on actual issues that may have contributed to the losses?

Given that younger voters are disproportionately negatively impacted by the Great Recession and plodding recovery, I'd have thought that Obama would have lost many of them but that was very much not the case. This would indicate that there is something else at work other than the ethnicity, the economy and gays. Leaving aside the changes in strictly ethnic demographics, do you think the "generational" gap is really only about gays or are there perhaps other longer-term causes also contributing to the outcome among younger voters?

 

MassRef that is a great post.

You mentioned Akin and Mourdocks slips of the tongue. But don't you think the
larger problem is really the platform and the actual policy via a via rape and incest? Don't you think if the party just called it good on those, it'd be a stalemate and the extremists would have to live with it?

It just seems so easy for the party to make a strategic decision to test the base over these two years. Lose the extreme positions on gays and vaginas, test the waters in a few situations... and if you lose your base at midterms, recalibrate before 2016. If they still come along, you can move incrementally to the center in other areas, perhaps.

Also, it annoys me when I sense that the goal of the GOP in hispanic outreach is not to make their lives better, but to get some cheap votes. Kraut hammer (who should not be allowed to talk again, so wrong has he been on so many things) has a two-step pandering plan to win the Hispanic vote. I involves border security and dreamers. I find this cynical and I'm sure they will too. Am I misreading this?

 

Well, @MassachusettsRef, that was quite a post. The republican party would do well to read the shit out of it.

 

Yeah. I've never copied a post to save it before, and I've missed some good ones since I'm such search-function incompetent, but that one is worth saving.

 

You have to take note that the high profile Tea Party losses were in purple states. There's little reason to expect a Tea Partier from a deep red state to be afraid. That won't happen until they become outcast in their own party. For now their coalition is too big and powerful for moderates to pick a fight with them.

 

Aren't you all glad I asked?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...orters-canada_n_2094572.html?utm_hp_ref=media

 

Yeah, just looking at the map, that seems to be the most 'directest' route.

Great stuff

 

The network announcements are awfully useful for people who are torn between following the election and getting enough sleep for the next workday.

I have no interest in bashing Rove here, but I can't see a lot of objective evidence to support your claim. This year, the network call was unquestionably right, as Obama won Ohio by over 100,000 votes. If you'd been in the position of the analysts for all the networks, looking at so many votes remaining in Cuyahoga County, or even gone down to the precinct level, you may well have concluded the same thing.

As you pointed out, the networks were abundantly cautious about Florida. No reason to think they weren't plenty cautious about Ohio, as well.

 

Just reading MR's posts, (interesting stuff, BTW... thanks), it occurs to me that people get themselves into a bit of a lather with the minutiae of the latest political story and miss the bigger picture.

As he says, the significance of Sandy was being overblown, (npi), in some quarters by the 'punditocracy' when, in truth, people had probably made their minds up well before that.

It rather reminded me of this from our 2010 election when the then prime minister was collared by a long time labour voter who expressed her doubt about the wisdom of allowing large numbers of immigrants, (mostly from the former eastern European states like Poland), into the country and it's effect on the future of her grandchildren. Unfortunately, (for him), the Sky News, (Prop: R. Murdoch), radio mikes were still running...



As usual at election time, I was canvassing for the party and could gauge peoples reactions and, apart from a few people who thought it was bloody funny coz he'd made himself look an idiot, I don't think it changed one persons vote in a hundred.

I suppose Sandy allowed Obama to point out the 'government is bad' message was fallacious but, other than that, it probably made little difference.

 

But aren't those the most important ones?

Like MassRef implied, it will be interesting to watch how the recent results impact the energy level of the tea party contingent. It could either make them angry enough to get MORE energized or discourage them and make them LESS energized. I have no idea which way it will go. If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to guess, I'd say that the extremist propensity for doubling down on the crazy under adverse circumstances makes it more likely the teabaggers will be more energized by this slap in the face from the swing states which means the Dems will need to work extra hard in 2014 to maintain.

 

For me, the problem wasn't just being callous or sexist, it was (in the case of Akin) being a complete ignoramus. The female body can just shut that whole thing down? Really? And the clincher is that this guy is on the House committee on science and technology (along with the "pit of hell" guy from GA). Speaking as a scientist, the GOP platform on science issues is just plain stupid in most cases. And speaking as a regular guy, I don't want the country run by stupid people.

 

Yeah, that was my biggest surprise as well....the fact that a nation like the US could be run by people that insists that dinosaurs and Jesus co-existed. Scary!

 

Is there any doubt? The vote against them simply PROVES there's a conspiracy against them and other 'real' Americans.

I don't know if anyone caught it but it was discussed on Bill Maher's show last night. Andrew Sullivan was saying he hopes the crazies are thrown off the bus so the republicans can find their true voice again. James Carville was saying he hopes they DON'T coz the democrats will win all the elections going forward.

The annoying thing is that there IS a valid right-wing viewpoint in support of maintaining proper control of the public finances, of looking after people who start businesses, (and thus create jobs), of making sure the state is properly defended, etc. etc. The trouble is that's been sidetracked by all this crap about gay rights, women's bodies and the other nonsense.

The right wing USED to be about allowing people to look after their own affairs and managing the government in a reasonable and practical way. Now, it seems to have gone batshit crazy and started involving itself in stuff that's nothing to DO with them.

 

TBH I don't think there's any other way to see it. I also don't see how anyone can argue that, if a woman is raped, god obviously 'wanted it to happen'.

Of course, that might be because I'm an atheist, but....

 

This is their biggest issue. They support small government until it comes to self righteousness. It is at that moment they feel government should intervene to enforce their beliefs that are born out of the teachings of their local pastor. From that moment, small government goes out the window and all of the sudden its "Jesus Is Lord" time - enforced by your tax dollars.

 

Carville is only partly correct. It would keep the White House Democrat for the foreseeable future. It will keep purple states Senators Dem unless the Dems put up a real loser. It might even increase the number of Dem governors. House and state-level elections, though, are much more localized so bar the kind of gerrymandering seen in, say, Illinois, the House and state legislatures will not be impacted by the presence of the crazies unless the local area sees demographic changes.

The social "bedroom" issues are a part of it. Americans continue to be suspicious of large concentrations of power in both the public and private arenas. With few exceptions, the current crop of "libertarians" focus only on "Big Government" and not on "Big Business" and I'd like to believe that many Americans see this blind spot in both the Libs and the Reeps and are wary of it even though you won't see it discussed in the MSM.

 

Or to sum it up in a pithy catch phrase, they want to get government out of the boardroom but into the bedroom.

 

To be fair, the "god's will" comment was taken out of context every bit as much as wingnuts took Obama's "you did not build it" comment. In both cases, you don't have to look too hard to see what the speaker really meant even if the exact quote was formulated poorly. Part of the Reep problem is that were so many such comments (some of them genuinely nutball, some not) whereas Dems weren't running around seeming to bad mouth small businesses in an equally stupid manner.

 

How was it taken out of context?

Every time I something good that happened it was because "prayers were answered"...when it is the opposite, it is because "God works in mysterious ways."

 

Another subject altogether, however in my opinion most of them use Christianity as shield for them to believe or do as they like. Real Christianity is not what they have warped it to be.

It is my opinion they have warped Christianity no differently than the Republican party; to fit whatever they desire.

 

I agree...if Jesus was around today, he'd be a communist.