Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1 Why Obama Won — and What Conservatives Must Do 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    In the words of Bill Murray in Scrooged, "Boy, did that ever suck!" Time to recover. Here's a good analysis and good advice.



    Ron Radosh - http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh Why Obama Won — and What Conservatives Must Do

    Posted By Ron Radosh On November 6, 2012 @ 10:15 pm In Uncategorized | 366 Comments

    There are no ways to get around the facts. For Republicans and conservatives and independents who wanted a new direction for our country, the victory of President Obama is sad — and for many of us, unexpected. Those conservatives who assured us with statistics, theories, and arguments about Romney winning the White House, even in a landslide, should be eating their hats.

    In the past week, conservatives who usually disagree with each other about many things, including Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, Dick Morris, my PJM colleague Roger Kimball, George F. Will, Karl Rove, and Michael Barone, among others, provided analysis and arguments, all of which led to predictions of an inevitable Romney victory. Instead of the outcome they all looked forward to and assumed would be inevitable given Obama’s failures and the state of the economy, they found that their theories collapsed as the returns poured in. Instead of a long night, by 11:30 p.m. even Fox News had called the election for the president. Yes, Karl Rove thought their statistics desk called it too early, but 15 minutes later he too agreed that Ohio had gone for the president.

    So what happened? I had been trying to warn my optimistic friends in recent days that I thought Obama would win, and was regularly greeted with a slew of polls meant to prove I was wrong. So here are some of my thoughts and reactions, written before I can be influenced by the pundits who will be writing in tomorrow morning’s newspapers and appearing on TV talk shows.

    First, the Obama campaign’s decision to frighten women worked. Republicans did not wage a campaign on social issues, but the Obama team ran commercials in all the major swing states emphasizing how Romney would try to outlaw contraception and prohibit their right to choose abortion if they felt there was no alternative, and that half the population would be threatened were a Republican elected.

    Republicans lost the Senate with the two candidates who made outrageous statements that Romney simply dealt with by saying he did not agree; he refused to take away his endorsements, which would have indicated he meant business. No one expected the unpopular Claire McCaskill to win, but Todd Akin’s ridiculous statements led even her to win, and Richard Murdock’s outrageous views on rape as something God intended resulted in victory for his Democratic opponent. Without the Republican Party sticking to support for both these candidates, the Republicans might have been able to gain the Senate. With friends like these, conservatives became their own worst enemies, providing the ammunition for the Democratic charge that Republicans were waging a war on women.

    Second, there is the hurricane factor. The nation saw Obama in his bomber jacket, accompanied by Republican keynoter Gov. Chris Christie as he visited the devastated areas of New Jersey hit by Hurricane Sandy. For the Democrats, it became the perfect storm that allowed the nation to believe what it wanted desperately to think — that Barack Obama had become a leader whom even the conservative governor of New Jersey worked with and praised for his leadership. The news coverage of Obama and Christie, and the governor’s effusive over-the-top praise of the president, hurt Romney in a significant fashion. Christie’s stance even led Bruce Springsteen to talk on the phone with the governor on Election Day, and to praise him for his working relationship with the president. Christie finally got the call from his hero that he had been yearning for. Gone, I think, are his chances to run for the White House as the Republican candidate four years from now.

    Third: the Latino vote. The percentage of Latinos voting increased significantly, and although many are Catholic and socially conservative, the tough stance on immigration reform taken by Romney in the primary campaign hurt his chances of gaining enough of their votes. Republicans like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, both of Florida, were serious about conservatives developing a position more flexible and less dogmatic than the anti-immigration position of many conservatives. Their views, supported by the Wall Street Journal and most of the business community, were not that of most conservatives. When the voting statistics are tallied, I think we will find that with more Latinos voting for Republicans, Romney might have been able to do much better, if not win. As it is, he will have won far less than George W. Bush, who tried to develop a different policy but lost his fight to gain conservative support on the issue.

    Fourth: The Republicans, who indeed may have obtained many of the white working-class vote (the so-called Reagan Democrats of past campaigns), cannot count on winning national elections and to be a national majority party if they count only on the votes of a diminishing white working-class and on the votes of Southern states alone. In this sense, the theory of John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira of an “emerging Democratic majority,” which is based on their demographic picture of the electorate, is apparently beginning to prove fairly persuasive. That means that to win, Republicans have to change their strategy and the nature of the appeals they make to the country at large. It is not enough to say simply that “if we strongly advance conservative principles, we will win.”

    Five: Romney did not convince voters, as Florida and Ohio voters said to the press who asked, that he cared for people like them. Obama, they said, showed that he cared and understood their problems. In other words, Obama was successful in his portrayal of Romney as a spoiled man of wealth who cared only for the profit of vulture capitalists, such as those at Bain Capital as it was portrayed by the Democrats.

    Six: What does the future portend? Already, the centrist Democrat Lanny Davis [1] penned an op-ed on Fox News’ website, arguing that he should make three phone calls to “three conservative Republican senators who care about the country and who want to solve problems more than winning ideological wars.” They are, he writes, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch. Together, he argues, Obama can create a “broad center-left and center-right bipartisan majority congress and actually start to solve problems facing our country.”

    Good luck, Lanny. My own belief is that the president will argue that the nation has given him a mandate and endorsed the policies he sought to pursue, and that he will do all he can to move the United States to the “fundamental transformation” he said was his goal in the 2008 election campaign. That means the opposite of any attempt for serious compromise, and a hunkering down to try to move ahead with Obama Care and other politically leftist programs. He will try to mobilize the nation against the Republicans, who managed to hold control of the House of Representatives.

    Seven: So what should conservatives do, now that the nation has elected Barack Obama to a second term? The popular vote is fairly split evenly, and we are still a divided nation. Politically, there is nothing ahead but continued stalemate in Congress. The president will attempt to move ahead via executive branch fiat, thereby bypassing Congress.

    In this atmosphere, it is foolhardy to give the nation evidence that failure to try and solve problems that are confronting us is the fault of Republicans and conservatives. Those opposed to the direction Obama favors should provide serious and meaningful alternatives of their own, and present them to the nation. They should do everything possible to reveal to the nation that it is the White House, and not the defeated Republicans, that is failing to deal with the coming crisis of a growing entitlement state.

    In foreign policy, which is the most dangerous of the coming crises that will face the Obama administration, conservatives should relentlessly forge ahead on issues like the failure of the White House in the murders of our diplomats at Benghazi, which candidate Romney foolishly failed to deal with in the last days of the campaign, and to see to it that there is a change in direction from the failed policies of the past four years. It also means a continuing effort to raise the issue of the danger to the world of the growing radical Islamic movements abroad, to attack their ideology, and to make it clear that although Bin Laden is dead, his death did not put an end to a regrouped al-Qaeda.

    Finally, it is essential that conservative intellectuals do not abandon the effort to change the culture, and to, in Gramscian terms (as the late Gene Genovese often put it), wage a war of position on the cultural front and to do all possible to challenge the ascension of a failed intellectual liberal ideology, whether it be in the form of Progressivism, liberalism or socialism. Whether it is called “the blue model” as Walter Russell Mead calls is, or something else, the intellectual fight against its assertions must begin with all the strength we can muster.

    So we all have our work cut out for us. Let us hope our nation gets through the next four years, and that the president takes Lanny Davis’ call to heed, and does not act as I fear he will.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article printed from Ron Radosh: http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh

    URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/11/06/why-obama-won/

    URLs in this post:

    [1] Lanny Davis: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...ans-in-second/


    Copyright © 2012 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,056
    obama won because the freeloaders who don't want to work for what they have were afraid to lose all their free stuff. They were more concerned about Big Bird, free contraception, and obamaphones than the were about jobs, the debt, and gas prices. It just goes to show how stupid and selfish people in this country are.

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,488
    I think #4, all by itself, was the killer.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    I think it's more important to look at why sitting vegetable of a POTUS in the shattiest economy ever in our lifetimes was able to dominate and election that my dog Koby could have won. People need to quit treating this guy like he's some Demi-god and look within. What did Romney offer the Latino vote? or Women?

    In this atmosphere, it is foolhardy to give the nation evidence that failure to try and solve problems that are confronting us is the fault of Republicans and conservatives. Those opposed to the direction Obama favors should provide serious and meaningful alternatives of their own, and present them to the nation. They should do everything possible to reveal to the nation that it is the White House, and not the defeated Republicans, that is failing to deal with the coming crisis of a growing entitlement state.
    That's a great quote, but when your own house is in disorder you can't do much spring cleaning elsewhere.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,056
    I agree Molon. Romney didn't really offer anything of real significants. He wanted to take things away and that scared the lazy who are used to having everything handed to them. They didn't want to lose their freebee lifestyle. Romney wasn't pretty much anyone's first choice. But in this election, it was a case of removing the failure. And Romney was all we had.

    The thing I am most glad about here is that in 2016 I can hopefully go the independent route and decide from there. Unless Joe Biden makes it past the primaries. There is no way I will ever support that stupid douchebag.

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,625
    Six: What does the future portend? Already, the centrist Democrat Lanny Davis [1] penned an op-ed on Fox News’ website, arguing that he should make three phone calls to “three conservative Republican senators who care about the country and who want to solve problems more than winning ideological wars.” They are, he writes, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch. Together, he argues, Obama can create a “broad center-left and center-right bipartisan majority congress and actually start to solve problems facing our country.”
    I can't take any more of this shit, I seriously cannot listen to any more of this mealy mouthed bullshit!
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    I just can't buy this hurricane explanation. Seriously. Do we really think that anyone who was going to vote for Romney actually switched because they saw Obama acting presidential? And I noticed the author called republicans "anti-immigration". Shouldn't that be anti "illegal" immigration? Has anyone on Romney's team said they were against people immigrating here legally? That's the kind of misrepresentation that the dems don't have to deal with. They don't even have an immigration plan. No one has asked them to present one. The only fault I find is Romney was totally inept and impotent in countering these claims. And I also think Boehner has done a horrible job. It's not enough to act as a firewall to the liberals, he needs to do a better job of explaining why some of their actions need to be stopped.
    Last edited by Lager; 11-07-2012 at 07:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Guys, what it comes down to is this: Romney nailed the problem when he mentioned the 47% who pay no taxes. They expect government to take care of them, and that's it. That 47% is the new Democratic baseline, and we have to either wean them off of entitlements, or accept that the best possible electoral result that a Republican can hope for is 53% of the vote, if all the stars align and we manage to produce the second coming of Ronald Reagan. That might happen, but when it does, that Republican is going to have to fight tooth and nail to convince that very small majority to deal with an angry minority of voters who demand to be treated like children, and that's not exactly a formula for electoral success. Weaning people from government is going to be difficult if we do not educate them, and make them understand why they are better off without the federal teat. Actually, it's going to be difficult even if they do understand it, but it has to be done, or we can accept that America is finished and we are now going to embrace decline. If you guys want to take up the challenge and shape that future, I'm there. If not, well, I'm not happy about being a centurion for a collapsing Rome, but if that's the future that I'm stuck with, I'll find a way to make it work for myself and my family.

    Make the choice.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    I just can't buy this hurricane explanation. Seriously. Do we really think that anyone who was going to vote for Romney actually switched because they saw Obama acting presidential? And I noticed the author called republicans "anti-immigration". Shouldn't that be anti "illegal" immigration? Has anyone on Romney's team said they were against people immigrating here legally? That's the kind of misrepresentation that the dems don't have to deal with. They don't even have an immigration plan. No one has asked them to present one. The only fault I find is Romney was totally inept and impotent in countering these claims. And I also think Boehner has done a horrible job. It's not enough to act as a firewall to the liberals, he needs to do a better job of explaining why some of their actions need to be stopped.
    The Left Extreme has successfully conflated "legal immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" to "immigrant". It's infuriating. They know it, and they do it anyway. They (not unlike the Right Extreme referring to marriage) put "illegals" in quotes.

    I want someone to put the "Latino voter" on the spot. Starting with Marco Rubio. Marco: Are you an American citizen and if you are then why are you supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and by extension and open border with Mexico?

    And isn't it a tad racist to refer to caucasian Latinos as nonwhite and negroid Latinos as nonblack? Latino is not a race. Hispanic is not a race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Guys, what it comes down to is this: Romney nailed the problem when he mentioned the 47% who pay no taxes. They expect government to take care of them, and that's it. That 47% is the new Democratic baseline, and we have to either wean them off of entitlements, or accept that the best possible electoral result that a Republican can hope for is 53% of the vote, if all the stars align and we manage to produce the second coming of Ronald Reagan. .
    Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •