I'm really late with this. Wasn't going to publish it but I changed my mind……
Well, the election is over and Mr. Obama is getting a second term. Congratulations to him, I hope he works with his partners in Congress to keep our country out of the ditch. I've had folks ask me why I think he lost: did the Obama folks "micro-target" more effectively? Was Mr. Romney unlikable? Wrong strategy?
I believe our downfall as republicans is rooted is 2 very important and distinct issues:
1: Mr. Romney needed to run as a businessman and "fixer" in order to win. It's what he is and a successful candidate for any higher office has to run a campaign that is true to himself. You might get away with that crap at the local level forever and at the state level for a couple of years but not in the big leagues. His stump speech needed to be about a minute long: "I'm a businessman and a capitalist. I made a living fixing companies. Sometimes there was some tough love involved but I'm a businessman. I don't apologize for it. I fixed the Olympics. I was Governor of MA and worked with anyone I could to better my state. I've done it before and I'll do it again." That's it. Mr. Romney isn't a wild-eyed pistol waver social conservative. He's a businessman conservative. Having to deal with "trans-vaginal ultrasounds", "rape is god's will" and that super genius who indicated that womens bodies can shut down conception in cases of rape was not productive. You might dispute the individual incidents but the cumulative impact is hard to deny. The insistence of our own General Assembly to introduce and pass the ultrasound bill most likely cost our Governor a serious shot at the VP slot. I'm sure that as soon as the Romney campaign got a load of "conservatives" mandating internal ultrasounds they didn't just erase Bob's name, they cut it out of the page. The Democrats (wisely, in their case) made electoral hay of this and turned it into a "War on Women". Whether or not you believe that doesn't matter. Plenty of women certainly did and the Democrats messaged on it constantly. Ironically, this same issue also cost Mr. Romney votes on the far right social conservative side. Pretty sure Mr. Romney's handling of those hot spots didn't lead them to conclude that their social conservative agenda was a priority of his – I know I wouldn't have if that was my priority.
2: The GOP's got a serious demographic problem. Immigration (of whatever form – right, wrong or indifferent) has changed the electoral landscape in many important swing states – including Virginia. Mr. Romney didn't do real well with that segment. He also didn't do very well with the lady-folk. Neither is a huge shock: Mr. Romney took an early position on immigration that had something to do with "self-deportation" that didn't make much sense. He then switched to a position in early October that seemed to say that he was going to continue the current policy but reform it in unspecified ways after elected. So, the top of the ticket is dodging and the GOP at-large is mistrusted by Latino voters. That can only end poorly. Especially when you're running against a guy who is on the stump, banging the podium for equality and inclusion.
Those two problems were external to the campaign but they did exert a strong influence. Many point out that Romney was a deeply flawed candidate who couldn't draw the party together. In that much I somewhat agree: I believe Mr. Romney had all of the right pieces to win but there was always that nagging suspicion that Romney was just telling you what you wanted to hear. If you were outside that prime target funnel – a businessman conservative – you never quite believed what the Romney folks told you. Many insist they would have had more regard for Mr. Romney had he just told them exactly what he thought and stood his ground. While I think that's probably true on an individual basis I don't believe it in terms of the larger factions inside the republican party.
Ironically, it probably didn't really matter who ran against Mr. Obama. None of the candidates in the republican primary really had an over-arching agenda for America – or lacked one that appealed outside their base. It was a wacky mix of SoCon orthodoxy, Tea partiers, strange businessmen and political has-beens. So, failing that, your tact is to wallow in the mud with the incumbent and at that point, he's got you. It's a battle of inches, not ideas.
November 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Andy,
Two very good points but I think there is a third. For many years the Republicians have not adhered to their base principles and this has cost them time after time. One of my favorite sayings is "actions speal louder than words". The actions of the GOP has not matched their words. The GOP stood for free enterprise, small government and low taxes (or at least that is what I thought). The recent history of the GOP shows this has not been the case. Overspending caused Ross Perot (Perot's major platform was overspending) to run as a third party and this gave Bill Clinton the Presidency. Overspending by George W. Bush created the Tea Party (does anyone think the Tea Party folks came from the Democratic Party). George W. Bush inherited a $5.6 Trillion deficit. George W. Bush left office with a $10.6 Trillion deficit. Personally, I don't think that two wars gave us an additional $5 Trillion deficit (although they didn't help), I believe it was the expansion of the social programs such as "no child left behind" and the expansion of Medicare with prescription drugs, etc and yes the simple growth and expansion of government, as much as the wars. The GOP is driving their base away as Congress and the leaders of the GOP seem to be more worried about their particular job than those of others and not by abiding by the words that got them elected. Again, "actions speak louder than words".
November 12, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Over the longer arc of history, I'd agree and it's cost us credibility on one of our "strengths".
November 12, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Yep you've got it. Stay out of women's bodies and control your spending. No child left behind, has left more behind recently. Why not go back to yesteryear and teach the kids to the level they are capable of handling. As the old saying goes, the herd is only as fast as it's slowest…FACT! If you keep teaching to the slowest kids in the classroom the others who are capable of learning more will only be left behind.
November 12, 2012 at 7:03 pm
The election was what it was, but what continues to be the most disheartening thing is the continued growth in the 'campaign industry'. For decades now, non stop campaigning and fundraising seem to be what tie up the majority of our legislators' time. A three friggin day week. It's ridiculous. What laws they do write are created solely for the benefit of those who supported the campaigning. It's a really crappy situation. Whether it's unions, environmentalists, business groups or individuals footing the bill, it's as bad now as when Jay Gould, the Vanderbuilts, Rockefeller, and the like just handed bags of cash and stock deals to the congressmen. It's somehow 'neater' now, I guess, but it's all the same corruption. Private money and super pacs are poisoning the system. National elections should be short and publicly funded. Some political consultants might end up on the dole for a while, and some will hang in there, but at least they'll stop increasing in number. Billions spent this election cycle. Incredible.
November 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm
No Doubt…if either candidate would have given HALF to the debt, I would have voted for 'em.
November 13, 2012 at 8:55 am
The Dems did a great job getting out their vote. Their ground game was excellent as already noted.
I believe the majority of the country is, on balance, fiscally conservative. The best reason to have voted for Romney was that he was more conservative than Obama, the rest is fluff. But Romney damaged his credibility by trying to be something for everyone, losing credibility in the process. This caused some conservatives to simply not vote; they stopped trusting Romney. On policy he remained the more desireable conservative candidate compared to Obama, but he was not a personably likeable candidate. Like it or not, many Americans are not policy wonks, they want to actually like, respect and trust the candidate the candidate that more closely happens to align with their policy views.
I personally thought it was unfortunate that some talk shows became the de facto voice of the GOP. I know some good folks who declined to vote for the GOP candidate because they saw it as supporting that voice, which they perceived as both mean and unduly inflammatory. They did not vote for Obama but just stayed home.
Years ago the GOP achieved very significant success by tailoring their vote to a silent majority with significant success. The GOP will have difficulty achieving similar success so long as it instead chooses to focus on a vocal minority.
Research papers will be written about this election for a long time.