April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Lunch to go | Main | Tactical superiority »

Nov 08, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Account Deleted

The first linked article is amazing. The comments from volunteers below the article even more so.


There is nothing as satisfying in all of this as knowing just how stunned all of the die-hard Romney supporters were (and probably still are). You have always lived in a bubble. Well, this time it popped, and there isn't any equivalent of a patch kit for the foreseeable future. Get used to being in the minority, guys. You've earned it, and you deserve it with your small-minded politics of obstruction and exclusion. You rejected the big tent, and now it's all pissing down on you. Let it rain.

This election was a sea-change on a national level. The notion of a Silent Majority? Exploded. Done. Cooked. Forever. It will never be again. Demographic change in this country has insured that the Republican Party, as it currently stands on a national level, is nothing more than a relic. An incumbent President with poor job numbers and minimal legislative success over the last TWO YEARS hammered his opponent. Factor in the Tea Party nonsense, the Evangelical nonsense, and all of the other blustering crap tangential to the Republican Party, and you realize that it is more likely there will be the emergence of a third party -- with no hope for meaningful electoral success -- than any sort of reconciliation and effective unified message within the current Republican framework.

Don't even start with the House of Representatives. Actually, do. It is the ONLY hope Republicans will have for a generation for any sort of directed national power. What you fail to realize is that the House is not illustrative of the nation -- most congressional districts have been drawn by their state legislatures to create safe seats, and fewer than 5% of seats are meaningfully contested every 2 years. Perhaps that's where all of the misplaced optimism came from. Boy was that a bad read. You lot are going to have to decide how you want to play that card. Do you obstruct as you've done since 2010 and alienate everyone else, thus guaranteeing the continuation of your current sad, sorry state? Or do you come around to your senses, get on with meaningful governance, and embrace compromise?

Let's hope the national Republican leadership is more nuanced in its thinking than some of the blowhards around this place. Lick your wounds and get your heads straight.


Lost in JoJo's little dribble of non-comprehension is the essential truth contained in the AoS article linked.

If this particular GOTV hadn't been totally screwed up, and the requisite 400k votes been strategically acquired for the states of FL, VA, OH, and CO, all of you would currently been pissing and moaning about President-elect Romney.

There is no mandate for Obama, and there is no "mandate" for Republicans to be Democrat-lites, regardless of how much you need to obscure the facts.


Jeff..Agreed that operation was an unmitigated goat f-ing. I don't know as the writer wonders that if it had worked like clockwork , it would have made any differnce. I got litterally dozens of robo calls from the Romney campaign. Preaching to the choir, especially this way, is a waste of time and in this case money. Something kept three ( 3 ) million Republicans home Nov. 6. If they had turned out.. duh !

Mojo, I would remind you that not too long ago Canadian Conservatives were declared dead and condemned for all time to the wasteland while Liberals were gloating and preening like the US Dems today ( and their alies in the MSM ) Guess what liberals in Canada now are in the trashbin and Conservatives have ascended to power.

The tide rolls in but sure as there is a moon the tide rolls out.

Enjoy it while you can. Or then again you may have buyers remorse sooner than you imagine. Not much you can do about that now. A card laid is a card played.


Read this, Tim:

"In fact, Orca diverted scarce resources that would have been better used physically moving voters to polling places. By a rough calculation, Romney lost the election by falling 500,000 to 700,000 votes short in key swing states. If each of the 37,000 volunteers that had been devoted to Orca had instead brought 20 voters to the polls in those states over the course of the day, Romney would have won the election."



Blah blah blah. Captain Cut-and-Paste, Master of Irrelevancy. At it again, as per usual.

Damn straight I played that card, Tim. And proud of it.


"And proud of it."

You left out "stupid", too. You obviously didn't understand what the AoS article said. Or perhaps, like most delusionaries, you just couldn't bring yourself to come to the self-realization of your disorder.

No matter. The end result is your conclusion is just as worthless as your persona. That's common among people like you, who suffer from the emotional maturity level of an 8 year old.


Still bitter, old man?

Andrew Brod

Every article or statement that's ever pronounced the death of [fill in name of political party] has been proven wrong within an election cycle, and I very much doubt that the current spate of Democratic triumphalism will be the exception to that rule. However, the attempt by conservatives to spin this election as being decided by campaign tactics is a bit pathetic.

Speaking of pathetic, Karl Rove continues to make the kind of sense that only makes sense within the conservative bubble.


Wrong, Brod. You are missing the demographic trend. Ask Michael Steele. Between now and 2016, 2.4 million Hispanic-Americans will turn 18. Their level of political engagement will be the highest we have ever seen within the 18-24 age group. And guess who speaks to their concerns? As long as the Dems maintain a comprehensive, big-tent focus, the Presidency and Senate is theirs for the taking.

Don't misunderstand this pride for gloating. The big tent may be a BIG tent, but the Dems will have to govern responsibly. The current Republicans have proven incapable of such at the national level, and when you lot leave your southern echo chamber, you will see how electorally insignificant the intolerant conservatives have become at the national level.

Relics, all.


Here's the difference:

After 2000, 2004, and the 2010 mid-terms, Republicans assumed their ascendancy as a "God-given reward". They reeked of hubris and civic entitlement.

I'm saying the Democrats will in 2012, differently, realize that responsibility comes with reward, and instead of hubris, will feel a sense of obligation.


Andrew Brod

I'm aware of the demographic trend.


Very well.


In 2008, Democrats gloated and then had their asses handed to them in 2010. Polling data shows no real love for Obama's agenda, enough people simply trusted him more than Romney.

The GOP as a party does need to do some retooling, but let's not pretend that there has been some great ideological shift. The data just doesn't support that.

The very overconfidence assigned to the GOP will prove just as disastrous to those on the Left if they fool themselves into overconfidence. The reality is that Obama is going to have to move even farther to the center-Right now than he did in his first term if he wants to get anything done. After today's news, it appears that he may be making the same mistake that he made in 2009.

Andrew is correct that the pendulum does swing. In this case, it hasn't really swung that far.

sean coon

spag: "Polling data shows no real love for Obama's agenda"

Exit polls 2012: Most say hike taxes
Poll: Obama, immigration policy winning battleground voters
After President Obama’s announcement, opposition to same-sex marriage hits record low
Voters back clean energy, climate policies
New Nationwide Poll Shows Voters Want Candidates to Focus on Manufacturing, Infrastructure
Obama leads in swing states poll on handling Medicare
Exit polls: Abortion as an election issue
Obama has foreign policy advantage according to poll

exactly what data are you referring to -- polls representing the folks who voted for romney?

here's something to think about to ruin your weekend. by the time we reach 2016, 16 of the previous 24 years will have had a democrat as the POTUS. and the dubya years? bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and could very well have lost the election outright. this is not an isolated trend.

the pendulum isn't related to the party; it's particular to the needs of the nation and how they've been met. it does make a difference that the US is becoming more diverse each year; it is an important indicator that the issues have evolved since the eighties. different people from different backgrounds have a variety of needs.

one thing that can be said about the national democratic party: they've been working on a big tent for a loooong time. meanwhile, the GOP hasn't demonstrated even the slightest desire or ability to open up or compromise on any positions—from women's health issues to dream act-like immigration reform to investing in public education/access to higher education to raising taxes/revenue to not attempting to kill medicare, etc.

while the national democratic party can obviously help/hurt themselves in how they proceed—and they've been known to get in their own way in magnificent fashion over the years—they're in a much better position moving forward by not having wooed tea bag extremists and an evangelical base with zero room for compromise.

oh, i almost forget, enjoy.


"Still bitter, old man?"

Still correct, Idiot Child.


"Polling data shows no real love for Obama's agenda"

Don't tell Seanie Boy, spag. He can't filter out the agenda-based noise in his head that impedes whatever marginal critical thinking skills he may possess.

Andrew Brod

Sean's right. Obama's agenda polls pretty well. The pendulum swung back toward the Repubs in 2010 because the crappy economy gave it a big kick in that direction. It wasn't primarily about Democratic policies. Even at the height of the controversy over the ACA, a significant proportion of those opposing the bill felt that it didn't go far enough (e.g. toward single-payer). When the bill's components were polled, they were generally popular.

As for now, while I think the Dems should avoid becoming overconfident, the fact is that Mojo is right about the demographic and other challenges the GOP faces. If the party doesn't make some adjustments, the pendulum will remain on the Dems' side.

But some in the party are already talking about adjustments (which is why I didn't fully agree with Mojo). Just in the last couple of days, both Hannity and Krauthammer advocated amnesty for undocumented workers. Amnesty? Really? Even as recently as this year's primaries, that would have gotten you kicked out of the GOP. Immigration extremism was the cudgel that Romney used to knock Perry out of contention. The fact that Hannity and Krauthammer are rediscovering the non-extremism of Bush 43 on this issue is a pretty major development.

Now, will Repubs in states that are still strongly red go along with this "evolution" in thinking, as Hannity termed it?

Andrew Brod

Also this week, Boehner talked about how the GOP won't change its principles. He said the party will continue to stand for liberty and personal responsibility and all that. That's great, but those aren't what have alienated minority and female voters. It's the array of dog whistles fomenting anger over perceived injustices, favoritism toward others, and so on.

Conservatives are fond of attaching the "anger" label to Democrats, but the fact is that anger is the one of the biggest motivating forces the modern GOP has to harness. Boehner was talking about the GOP's intellectual underpinnings, but that misses the point, because this is about emotional underpinnings that manifest themselves in ways that are profoundly offensive to women and minorities. It's crazy, because that then undermines the party's appeal to some minority groups that might be open to the party's social conservatism.

But maybe you've got to retain all that in order to continue persuading lower-income and working-class whites to vote against their economic self-interest. It's a conundrum.


Spag: Overconfidence = bad

Yet I can't help but comment that it was the extreme overconfidence of the GOP that is the source of all the hand wringing today. Someone should have broken it to them that their policies weren't as popular as they convinced themselves they were. I just hope that the Democrats do not adopt this kind of bubble mentality. Polls do serve a purpose, after all.

Account Deleted

Andrew's last comment really just knocks it out of the park. I mean why should conservatives continue to foam at the mouth about some schmuck who takes two grand a year in food stamps or the equivalent of a few thousand a year for medical care for his kid when the Romneys and their buds in Elliot Capital made megamillions off an investment that was propped up by a direct cash transfer of $2.5 billion in tax payer funds and the erasure of about $4 billion in debt owed to the US Treasury?


Why is it that more people thought Romney would do a better job on the economy in exit polls? Why is that a majority of people believe government is too big in exit polls? Why is it that Obamacare still has majority opposition?

Why is belief in enforcing existing immigration laws "extreme"?

You are misreading the tea leaves. Same thing happened in 2008.


By the numbers...

Groups whose majority voted for Romney: men; white people; married people; people over 45; Protestants, other Christians and evangelicals; white Catholics; Mormons.

Groups whose majority voted for Obama: women; black, Hispanic and other non-white people; single people; people aged 18-44; black Protestants and other black Christians; Hispanic Catholics; Jewish people; people of other faiths or those who are religiously unaffiliated.

White voters make up 3/4 of the electorate at this point, but non-white births are in the majority now in the US. Protestants are no longer in the majority in the US and the number of Americans with no religious affiliation is rising. Same with the married group. Currently, about half of Americans are married, but the marriage rate is declining and by the next election, singles will likely be a majority group.

Ed Cone

Permanent is a long time. Not even the guy who wrote the book predicting this demographic shift believes in permanent coalitions.

But coalitions can hang together for a long time, and this new one has some demographic trends in its favor...if the Democrats can hold these disparate groups together, and the GOP can't pry some loose.


And right on cue, the GOP starts to court the Latino vote. Suddenly immigration reform is a real possibility. Yeah, self deportation, that didn't poll too well.

sean coon

Spag, if you honestly believe that "big" vs. "small" government is an actual issue with "other" hard working americans, such as latinos and, particularly, asian americans, then you not only misunderstand cultural differences, but are firmly planted within the right's bubbline.


Mitt Romney had everything going for him. A bad economy, high unemployment, underlying public sentiment on the economy in his favor, majority disapproval of Obamacare, and opposition to big government. That's not just what I "believe", that's what voters said.

From the Washington Post:

"Sixty-three percent rejected the idea of raising taxes to help cut the nation’s budget deficits, even though they’ve been hitting about $1 trillion per year...

...Voters embraced Romney’s message about government that’s grown too big. Just over half — 51 percent — said government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. Only 43 percent wanted government to do more to solve problems. That’s a reversal from four years ago...

...There wasn’t a clear winner between Obama’s economic policies and Romney’s. Voters were split on which of them would better handle the economy. But Romney got a narrow advantage on handling the federal budget deficit, 49-47."

So far from a rejection of conservatism and an embrace of liberal policies, the better question is why did Romney lose?

I think it comes down to a few things. First, Romney didn't make an effective case to a broad enough segment of the population. Second, the Obama GOTV effort was far superior. Third, the fact that Romney is wealthy in a time when there is still widespread anger over the financial crisis- aided by his "47% remark" that made him appear out of touch and uncaring. Fourth, he focused too much on increasing voter participation among his base instead of broadening the base. That last point is really a combination of the first three.

If you think social issues such as gay marriage and abortion are what cause Romney to lose, then you misunderstand the public. Those aren't voting issues for most Americans. If you want to claim that the GOP hasn't handled those issues well, then I would largely agree. However, that doesn't mean that in order to handle those issues better, the GOP needs to alter their position on those issues. Morons like Akin and Mourdock really dumbed them down and hurt the party image by uttering things that were far outside the mainstream of conservative thought. Recall that the GOP and many on the Right said so at the time.

I think that the results simply reinforce the fact that the U.S. is still divided on a number of issues.


And now Romney has gone and lost Florida. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse. ;-)


No Mojo, the worst part is that Romney ended up with 47.9% of the vote. Poetic justice if ever there was one.

sean coon

spag "If you think social issues such as gay marriage and abortion are what cause Romney to lose, then you misunderstand the public. Those aren't voting issues for most Americans."

this type of statement seems to be at the core of the national GOP's problems.

"most americans" aren't milquetoast, conservative, nuclear families with men having a firm hold at the head of the table dictating the thought process of wifey and kids. this election made that point rather clear. "most americans" also include women—who make up the majority of the voting block and think for themselves—and the LGBT community (conservatively estimated at ~1.8% or 4 million people of voting age in our population, not to mention another $4 million self-identified as bisexual [see previous link]), as well as their families, friends and open-minded folk who support their right to equality.

while akin and mourdock didn't do the national party and romney any favors with their head-in-ass positions, do they really fall far outside mainstream republican thinking? i say republican, not conservative, because people outside the republican party don't associate "the party" with the thinking of eisenhower and buckley anymore; they associate it with the tea party, the evangelical right, lunatic fringe politicians such as akin, mourdock, bachman, palin, etc. and obstructionists. i mean, seriously, every republican debate & state election focused on repealing roe v wade and infringing upon the rights of women. is that conservative thinking?

at what point of the spectrum, from traditional conservatism to fear-based controlling & bullying, does both the local & national republican party sit in the non-republican public's mind? my guess is that it's much closer to the latter, and that's a huge issue because it poisons the perception of the GOP on every major issue for this "new" america—from immigration reform to marriage equality to the right to control one's body to improving education to reducing the wage gap.

seems to me there needs to be a lot of GOP spring cleaning done, on both a personnel and philosophical level.

btw, on this blog, you didn't shit on akin for his position like the rest of us, instead you tip toed around it and turned it into a political issue, somehow the "other side's" fault, pointing at obama not looking to affect the current definition of roe v. wade as being "in support of" late-term abortion. if akin was a democrat, i'm pretty sure every registered democrat would've sliced him to pieces, upcoming election or not.

"be the change you wish to see in the world" is a binary philosophy; republicans can smile and shake hands all they want, but until they become flexible on the actual issues, and represent the needs of the people, they will be perceived as panderers.


You are sort of correct, Sean. But you do seem to live in an alternate reality regarding your third paragraph. That doesn't describe the sentiments of the vast majority of conservatives.

With regard to Akin, I do believe that I was comparing his extreme position to that of Obama and many on the Left that were no less extreme.

At least one of us isn't blind to the extremes of both ideologies.

Andrew Brod

"I do believe that I was comparing his extreme position to that of Obama and many on the Left that were no less extreme."

I can't think of anything that would make liberals happier than for conservatives to see Akin's views as no less extreme than Obama's.

sean coon

seriously, andrew.

spag, what has obama said or pushed that was anywhere near as extreme as akin's position on denying the right for a woman to have an abortion if she was raped?

in every circumstance, obama defers to the individual women, which you view as extreme from a conservative, moralistic position and women voters respond by screaming "stop trying to legislate my body"

it's not complicated. obama/the dems support the rights of women; the gop supports the rights of a fetus (or less formed in the case of the mississippi GOP & elsewhere) over the rights of the woman who would deliver said baby to term.

that's an affront to 51% of the voters in this country.


I think that partial birth abortion is extreme and so do the vast majority of Americans, including women.


Maybe I should rephrase: Akin's comments were stupid. Obama's position is extreme.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Obama only supported partial birth abortions when there was NO provision made for the life of the mother. Context is key, Sam. Telling a woman that she MUST carry a baby to term *even when* her life is in dander is the *true* extreme position here. Not vice versa.

sean coon

thank you, ged.

sean coon

thought this david frum article was rather well written. a few choice quotes:

" [...] People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family. [...] We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again."

The comments to this entry are closed.