Look at the margins in Florida and some states. Imagine if the Ron Paul supporters and the Gary Johnson folks instead had voted for Romney. Even most of them. A few state balances would flip
( Read more... )
They don't have it in their narrative, and it's nothing that may be solidly provable. All you can do is take the third party votes, look at past behavior, and go, 'hmm'.
I'm hoping the GOP gets it in its collective figurative skull that being inclusive and playing toward center is a strength, not a weakness.
If you were ever to really look in the minds of voters, most do not fall neatly into every party issue and stance. We are not a dichotomy of two types of people. We're spectra. The expectation, however, is you believe in the party's stuff, and if you don't, you're a RINO. And the folks who disagree with the party just do it more quietly or not at all. So the cohesiveness the GOP has had is usually more to do with... liking it more than the other party.
Independents, though, moderates... they're 30 percent, in the middle, and the deciders of things. If you bring them into the fold, you're that much stronger. If they identify with an R, they're potentially more likely to support the party.
But the GOP, for well over a decade, has pretty much went, 'you don't believe what we do? You're a RINO. Sure, you like capital punishment, fiscal responsibility, you're mostly behind 2nd amendment. ... But you disapprove of the Patriot Act, you're for gay rights, and you won't search hard for ways to pan the other party like we make a habit of doing. You're not one of us.'
A sentiment I have found resonant in the people I talk with. As the GOP became less tolerant, so did they. And the numbers dried up.
Again... Obama was VULNERABLE this election. He could have easily toppled to a more charismatic and inclusive opponent. I firmly believe that. But we've become so polarized that Romney catered to his base until the last month or so.
In a way I'm glad it didn't work, as it was an affirmation that such polarization is unhealthy and does not get the support you need. ... But we're still in a bad way, and if Congress doesn't get its butt in gear, I fear it will be a long, slow trek toward economic health.
Democrats could stand to do it too, but I find they're not as scornful of folks in the middle.
That depends on if the electorate rewards them for being extreme or not. 2010 did reward their rhetoric after all.
I'd argue he needed a more charismatic, inclusive, and well organized opponent. Obama was vulnerable and candidates matter but the incumbency does have an impact and Obama is clearly a talented campaigner.
I agree on the general idea of inclusiveness but I think there is an argument on perspective: one man's moderate is another man's extremist after all. For instance Senator Heinrich is a moderate in my opinion but I'm sure he'd be considered a lefty leftist from communistville by others.
I think it also matters what those people in the middle do or say and like any politician your base can turn on you easily for something popular in the past. Leiberman and Clinton learned that with the Iraq war.
Obama does all right. He also has his definite weaknesses. That first debate almost did him in. He just responds well to mud.
I'm still not a fan of our president. I find him to be divisive, and to not push for things very often after the health care overhaul (which I still do not care for). I'm not sure what he's really been doing this last year, besides campaigning.
Now, in part, that's our whole system. The election stuff started in late 2010, and that's just... stupid. It gets longer proportionately than Christmas season does each year.
The EOTC thing of late is just baffling to me. As I've looked for work I'm asked what benefits/assistance I'm on. How about none? Well, the business doesn't get a tax break, so I'm overlooked. Not happy about that, at all. One more hurdle for me.
Every candidate has weaknesses I'm just not sure what strategic candidate you'd need to defeat him as his organization and fundraising skills clearly surmounted a number of structural issues the President had. A better field was necessary but not a lot of the A-listers wanted to take on Romney and a possible obama defeat.
There wasn't much he could do with the congress that divided but I'd say the immigration overhaul was a large event he did (however questionable we both might find it for different reasons) and there have been regulation implementations as well as the larger issues abroad but no he hasn't done as much as he could in the last year. Though he did come out as for gay marriage and he did instruct INS to now consider same sex marriages as equivocal to hetero marriages. That is minor though.
I fully expect the election for 2016 to begin today if not in a few weeks with the fiscal cliff votes. I'd argue it actually began a few weeks ago with Cuomo and Christie both vying to looks in charge. The problem is A) the 24 hour news cycle needs its maw filled so stories are needed and B) the quiet stuff is now pulled more into the light so we see the internal wrangling.
If we're going to play speculation without knowing all the players and without knowing how the republicans will react to this election... I think its beginning but we need to see where Jeb Bush, Rubio, and Santorum shake out and Christie's record is going to be under a microscope next year as he runs for governor and we need to see how the conservatives in his party react to the trumped up story over sandy. He loses the governor race and he will not be able to run for president.
As for the democrats
Cuomo, Clinton and Biden all need to make their initial moves...
If the Republicans continue down their current path and they have their first caucus in Iowa, then I am fearing the chances on Santorum running the board. This time it was a three way tie with him Romney and Paul. Now with Romney and Paul gone...
That is a misnomer due to poor recording keeping on the part of the Iowa chairman that was not rectified until weeks later. Santorum won the primary in Iowa. He should remain frankly livid at the now disgraced chairman who has lost his position. He cost Santorum a lot of free media coverage.
That said as I have argued before we won't know the players for sometime but 2016 will have the more capable people who didn't want to bother taking on an incumbent president (and the history of incumbencies benefits). Jeb Bush (the more capable and centrist brother), Marco Rubio, Linda Lingle, and others.
And all that said why not have Santorum running up front he seems to represent a lot of Republicans so well.
Santorum was the last chicken to hatch. The 'anyone but Romney' momentum went to Bachmann, then Cain, then Gingrich... and I may be missing someone else before it finally settled on Santorum. Santorum was picked by default. The social conservatives didn't like Romney and they didn't like Paul. ... And after this I don't think they will be calling the shots any longer.
Johnson was on the ballot in Virginia... in fact in the primary Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were the only ones on Virignia's ballot.
The only two states Johnson was not on the ballot was Oklahoma (oppressive ballot laws) and Michigan ("sore-loser" clause since Johnson was running in Rep primary).
Ah my apologies I must have misread the election results incorrectly for Virginia the first time.
Not that it mattered to either Romney or Obama. If you combined Goode, Johnson and Stein with Mitt Romney you still wouldn't have beaten Obama's share of the vote and a recount would not have been triggered.
And yes we all remember Ron Paul being the only one on the Virginia Primary ballot facing Romney and losing by nineteen percentage points.
I'm hoping the GOP gets it in its collective figurative skull that being inclusive and playing toward center is a strength, not a weakness.
If you were ever to really look in the minds of voters, most do not fall neatly into every party issue and stance. We are not a dichotomy of two types of people. We're spectra. The expectation, however, is you believe in the party's stuff, and if you don't, you're a RINO. And the folks who disagree with the party just do it more quietly or not at all. So the cohesiveness the GOP has had is usually more to do with... liking it more than the other party.
Independents, though, moderates... they're 30 percent, in the middle, and the deciders of things. If you bring them into the fold, you're that much stronger. If they identify with an R, they're potentially more likely to support the party.
But the GOP, for well over a decade, has pretty much went, 'you don't believe what we do? You're a RINO. Sure, you like capital punishment, fiscal responsibility, you're mostly behind 2nd amendment. ... But you disapprove of the Patriot Act, you're for gay rights, and you won't search hard for ways to pan the other party like we make a habit of doing. You're not one of us.'
A sentiment I have found resonant in the people I talk with. As the GOP became less tolerant, so did they. And the numbers dried up.
Again... Obama was VULNERABLE this election. He could have easily toppled to a more charismatic and inclusive opponent. I firmly believe that. But we've become so polarized that Romney catered to his base until the last month or so.
In a way I'm glad it didn't work, as it was an affirmation that such polarization is unhealthy and does not get the support you need. ... But we're still in a bad way, and if Congress doesn't get its butt in gear, I fear it will be a long, slow trek toward economic health.
Democrats could stand to do it too, but I find they're not as scornful of folks in the middle.
Reply
I'd argue he needed a more charismatic, inclusive, and well organized opponent. Obama was vulnerable and candidates matter but the incumbency does have an impact and Obama is clearly a talented campaigner.
I agree on the general idea of inclusiveness but I think there is an argument on perspective: one man's moderate is another man's extremist after all. For instance Senator Heinrich is a moderate in my opinion but I'm sure he'd be considered a lefty leftist from communistville by others.
I think it also matters what those people in the middle do or say and like any politician your base can turn on you easily for something popular in the past. Leiberman and Clinton learned that with the Iraq war.
Reply
I'm still not a fan of our president. I find him to be divisive, and to not push for things very often after the health care overhaul (which I still do not care for). I'm not sure what he's really been doing this last year, besides campaigning.
Now, in part, that's our whole system. The election stuff started in late 2010, and that's just... stupid. It gets longer proportionately than Christmas season does each year.
The EOTC thing of late is just baffling to me. As I've looked for work I'm asked what benefits/assistance I'm on. How about none? Well, the business doesn't get a tax break, so I'm overlooked. Not happy about that, at all. One more hurdle for me.
Reply
There wasn't much he could do with the congress that divided but I'd say the immigration overhaul was a large event he did (however questionable we both might find it for different reasons) and there have been regulation implementations as well as the larger issues abroad but no he hasn't done as much as he could in the last year. Though he did come out as for gay marriage and he did instruct INS to now consider same sex marriages as equivocal to hetero marriages. That is minor though.
I fully expect the election for 2016 to begin today if not in a few weeks with the fiscal cliff votes. I'd argue it actually began a few weeks ago with Cuomo and Christie both vying to looks in charge. The problem is A) the 24 hour news cycle needs its maw filled so stories are needed and B) the quiet stuff is now pulled more into the light so we see the internal wrangling.
Reply
Reply
As for the democrats
Cuomo, Clinton and Biden all need to make their initial moves...
Reply
Reply
That said as I have argued before we won't know the players for sometime but 2016 will have the more capable people who didn't want to bother taking on an incumbent president (and the history of incumbencies benefits). Jeb Bush (the more capable and centrist brother), Marco Rubio, Linda Lingle, and others.
And all that said why not have Santorum running up front he seems to represent a lot of Republicans so well.
Reply
Reply
The only two states Johnson was not on the ballot was Oklahoma (oppressive ballot laws) and Michigan ("sore-loser" clause since Johnson was running in Rep primary).
Reply
Not that it mattered to either Romney or Obama. If you combined Goode, Johnson and Stein with Mitt Romney you still wouldn't have beaten Obama's share of the vote and a recount would not have been triggered.
And yes we all remember Ron Paul being the only one on the Virginia Primary ballot facing Romney and losing by nineteen percentage points.
Reply
Leave a comment