Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Post-Election Analysis

By Tom Knapp

So ... I called it and I called it right.

How? Simple -- I paid attention to the polls, I did my own anecdotal weighting of those polls based on how I thought the demographics would break down (e.g. I thought the polling was under-weighted with respect to likely actual Latino turnout, especially in Florida and Nevada), and I took a cue from what the campaigns were concentrating on over the last few weeks (Obama spent the final month in hardcore "get the voters I already have in pocket to the polls" mode, while Romney got bogged down in "try to get those last few undecided voters to decide on me" mode).

That's pretty much all there was to the handicapping. No rocket science, no crystal balls, no tarot cards, and most of all, no inclusion of any personal preferences in my calculations (it helped that I didn't really have any personal preferences).

As to how we arrived at the situation leading into the result, a few thoughts:


  • Romney did not lose because he was "not libertarian enough" and certainly not because he was "too libertarian." Nor did he lose because he was "too conservative" or "not conservative enough." Ideology had very little to do with the result. The ideologues knew for whom they would be voting for months ago.
  • The conventional wisdom is that late undecideds tend to break for the challenger rather than for the incumbent, and for the centrist rather than for the more extreme choice. The real truth is that late undecideds tend to break for the candidate who has a story and sticks to that story. That break usually favors the challenger, who can frame a devastating critique of the incumbent and hammer that critique home without much variation while the incumbent has to be all over the map defending each and every screw-up of the previous four years. This year that break favored the incumbent. Obama stuck resolutely to his story, while Romney got caught up in a constantly shifting pander-bear routine.
  • Which takes me back to January, when I asserted that Newt Gingrich was the only candidate who had both a shot at the GOP nomination and a chance of beating Obama. Gingrich will piss down your back and tell you it's raining -- and if you turn around and catch him with his pecker still out and dripping, he'll get huffy and ask you if you believe him or your own lying eyes. The only time Romney showed that kind of backbone was with his "Jeep is getting ready to move to China" play, which failed not so much because it was a bald-faced lie as because it was a bald-faced lie aimed precisely at the only constituency in America who knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it was a bald-faced lie (voters in Ohio's auto manufacturing areas).
The only surprise for me last night -- and it was not an unpleasant surprise -- is that Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson apparently broke a million votes.

63 comments:

Charlie said...

Excellent analysis Tom, as always.

Would you agree with my comment (made in Jim's most recent post) that making Bronco Obama drive the bus that was going off the cliff anyway isn't a bad thing? I don't see how there are ANY tools available to him or the FED that can avert the coming recession. Kicking the can down the road only works until you run out of road LOL!

I don't think the sheeple are going to be to happy with whomever is in office when the Great Recession double dips.

The Right Guy said...

The great recession double dipped because of FDRs hubris and megalomania, so it will be here with Obama.

The Right Guy said...

I meant great depression.

Ran / SVP said...

...and right you were, with sound reasoning. Thanks for the post.

I'll admit too, that I had enough regard for your view that I was damned afraid that you'd be correct.

Cheers.

Charlie said...

The Double Dip is inevitable but unlike FDR what can Obama do? There is no total war to engage in. How can you engage in price controls and other statist measures in a global economy?

I do not see how this is anything but a disastrous second term for him, worse than GW's. Given that we've only had the same party control the White House for 12 years straight once since FDR... Given that roughly HALF the voters said NoBama last night (and given that Mittens was the option that is significant) I don't get why everyone is so glum.

Eric Dondero said...

Excellent Tom. I agree with so many points.

But Gingrich? Do you honestly believe Newt would have had appeal to the Latina in Orlando, or the suburban Philly mom? He would have scared the bejesus (sp?) out of them. We would have lost even worse.

They killed us. The moochers. Like Cliff says in his other piece, the country has changed. Americans are now full-blowned gimmee, gimmee, gimmee more government hand-out socialists.

They want Nazi with a smile. And Obama gave that to them.

At least Romney had some appeal to women voters. Gingrich nada.

Gary said...

There is the six year rule of elections.

2014 should see GOP wins. But what is the point when Republicans refused to cut Big Government in the twelve years they had the power.

We are evolving into Mussolini Corporatism / Communist China Capitalism.

Eric Dondero said...

No Gary, we've reached the point of no return. Too many moochers now who are voters. They outnumber us liberty-lovers 10 to 1.

Gary said...

Eric, I agree. We are becoming China. State run Corporatism.

KN@PPSTER said...

Charlie,

I agree that having Obama driving the bus for the next four years will be good for the GOP in 2016. As far as it being objectively good or bad, I have no opinion (I'm not a Republican, so I really don't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party's fortunes).

Eric,

Gingrich ("hey, if they've lived here for years and are working for a living, let's stop fucking with them") would have had more appeal to the Latina mom in Orlando than Mitt "encourage self-deportation" Romney.

While there's a limit to how much actual issues really affect elections, immigration is a case where the Republican Party has been stomping on its own crank continuously and with great energy for years.

Bush the Younger pled like hell for the GOP to get its head out of its ass on immigration -- and even though they refused, he knocked down 40% of the latino vote in 2004.

Romney got 20% -- running against an incumbent who deported as many immigrants in his first 2.5 years in office as Bush did in 8 years!

Let's take a look at some facts that explain a bit how important this is:

- Latino immigrants are more culturally conservative on average than native-born Americans. They should be a natural GOP constituency.

- Latino immigrants -- including "illegals" [sic] -- pay more per capita in taxes and request/receive less per capita in government "benefits" than native-born Americans. They are, in other words, the exact opposite of the "moocher class" you are bitching about (the moocher class is the suburban and rural white middle class). Again, they should be a natural "limited government" constituency.

- Latino immigrants mostly want to work their asses off, provide for their families, and otherwise be left the hell alone. Once again, a natural "limited government" constituency.

But does the GOP play to that?

No, they keep telling the mooching white suburban and rural middle class "it's those nasty Mexicans who are putting your welfare checks in danger. We'll protect you from them!" Even though it's the immigrants who are subsidizing suburban and rural white middle class grandma's Social Security and Medicare, and protecting white rural middle class farmer's bottom line by working cheaper while he collects his ag subsidies.

There are two problems with that approach:

- The mooching suburban and rural white middle class doesn't really believe that the Republicans will keep the welfare checks coming better than the Democrats will; and

- The Latino voters may not mind subsidizing the mooching suburban and rural white middle class, but they sure as hell DO mind getting beat up and deported and ESPECIALLY called names for doing so.

Both major parties beat them up and deport them, but the Democrats at least whisper sweet nothings in their ear while they do it instead of publicly using them as punching bags like the Republicans.

Bush the Younger had it right.

Gingrich was at least moving toward getting it right.

Romney threw away AT LEAST 20% of the Latino vote -- probably AT LEAST 5-7% of the popular vote in key blocs in Nevada, Florida and Ohio.

Obama busted his ass to grow the Latino vote and to convince Latino voters he was on their side. He couldn't have done the latter if the Republicans weren't such goddamn dumbasses about it.

Think 5-7% in Nevada, Florida and Ohio might have made just a wee difference?

Charlie said...

KN@PPSTER

What would be your perspective on the capital that illegals "export" from our GDP. Do you think remittances to Mexico are equaled by the lower labor costs illegals provide.

And I can only speak for my own area of SoCal, but your portrayal of the illegals is a bit romanticized in my eyes. The legal and illegal latino population here loves there handouts! After all we stole this land from La Raza :-)

Eric Dondero said...

No Tom, Gingrich is fat, piggly and ugly. He would not have any attraction to that Latina and most certainly not that suburban mom.

These are very superficial voters. They're celebrity/TV obsessed.

Mitt was perfect for them. If even Mitt can't appeal to them, we're sunk.

Eric Dondero said...

Tom, "Latinos want to work hard and be left alone."

That used to be the case. You are right, circa 20 years ago. They've changed within the last few years, and most especially under Obama.

I know many of them here in Texas. They've become much more slothful, government dependent, less willing to work.

It's like this. You've got one oldtimer Mexican immigrant guy who busts his ass, and still has a good work ethic, but his wife, his kids, his nephews, nieces, sister, grandmother, most of whom live in the same home, are now recieving some sort of government paycheck. The Mexican dudes paycheck has become suplemental. Still needed by the family, but not nearly as important as the check from "O-Ba-Ma!"

Eric Dondero said...

Here's the thing Tom. Let me speak honestly. I get a great sense from you that you're very stuck in this political correctness mode. They're are just certain places you are not willing to go too. Certain areas you're not willing to consider, such as divisions in ethnicity and culture.

We really cannot discuss this any further, unless you're willing to open your eyes towards taboo subjects that may be offensive to some.

Hispanics are different people from European Americans. I luv 'em to death. Hell, I've had more Mexican girlfriends in my life than carter's has pills.

But until we acknowledge that they are different, we are NEVER going to be able to figure out how to appeal to them.

You view them as no different, cause you're stuck in a leftist PC paradigm.

Eric Dondero said...

You say that the GOP should just adopt complete amnesty, open borders.

That's just a recipe for anihilation of the Republican Party. You honestly believe Mexican immigrants will reward the GOP for taking such a stance?

The Democrats offer free stuff and open borders. The GOP offers hard work, self-reliance, and open borders.

Which would they be more likely to choose?

Eric Dondero said...

Tom, do you think that that little Guatemalan guy minds it when that tall Mexican border guard throws his ass right back across the border, after locking him up in a crappy Mexican jail cell for two weeks?

You love to beat up on "meanie" white folk. But say nothing about Mexicans who guard their borders like hawks, and have been know to shoot Central Americans sneaking into Mexico on site.

Eric Dondero said...

You say if we had just adopted an anmesty platform, Romney might have won.

Really? And kiss off all the anti-immigration Tom Tancredo voters? How many of independents whose #1 issue is to protect the borders would have been enthused about voting for a pro-anmesty Romney ticket?

We probably would have lost 20 million votes.

KN@PPSTER said...

Eric,

"Hispanics are different people from European Americans"

I agree.

Hispanics bust their asses and assimilate into the American mode.

European Americans expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave and get annoyed when anyone tells them that the welfare checks can't keep coming in perpetuity with no one to pay the piper. They want their welfare, AND they want it to never be pointed out to them that it's welfare, AND they want the people who subsidize their welfare kicked the hell out of "their" country.

Charlie, if you don't like immigrants sending money back home, the solution is simple -- let them bring their families HERE.

Eric Dondero said...

Wow. You really are off your rocker.

That's a purely racist hate America attitude you have there Tom Knapp.

You cannot describe it as anything else. It's straight out of the KKK or the Nazi strategy manual. Just invite as many foreigners as you can into a country so that you can enslave the native population and eventually genocide them out of existence.

KN@PPSTER said...

Charlie,

As far as my "romanticized" view of latinos, no dice. I've spent time in immigrant-heavy communities in California from San Ysidro north as far as Delano, and just recently moved away from the St. Louis area's latino district, which is frankly one of two neighborhoods in my area that seems to be booming (the other one is heavy with Indian and Pakistani immigrants who seem to be a big portion of the medical and scientific sector in the St. Louis area).

If you want political incorrectness, here is some:

When I am behind someone in line at the store, if they are white or black there's at least a 50/50 chance they are going to pull out a food stamp EBT card to pay for their groceries. If they are latino, they pull out the wad of dirty greenbacks that they earned roofing, framing, landscaping. I have never seen a single latino using food stamps in my area.

When I am at my favorite Mexican restaurant/bar in that area -- the place where the Mexican blue collar guys go to eat, drink and play pool at the end of the day -- they take off their tool belts, work gloves and straw hats when they come in the door.

I've also lived in rural Missouri, and the most annoying thing in the world is a white farmer who gets a semi-annual check from Uncle Sugar for keeping part of his land unplanted, gets non-recourse loans, price floors and subsidized sales (e.g. ethanol) for the land he DOES farm, then uses immigrant labor to improve his bottom line until the day he sits down in his La-Z-Boy to collect his Social Security check -- all the while bitching about the goddamn Mexicans draining HIM dry with "welfare."

Charlie said...

Re:KN@PPSTER

Didn't say i didn't like it, was just looking for your interpretation of the #s. I'm a realist. I'd love to live in Libertopia where open immigration simply made our economy and society stronger. But as is many of the Latino immigrants are anathema to the American culture. The La Raza set isn't going for the GOP anytime soon. There's also the issue of Mexican's need to fix their own country's oligarchy. Does the availability of a better life in the USA encourage that? It's a more complex equation than either side admits. That said, if you're not a racist or a Mexican Mafia wannabe come on over :-)

Eric Dondero said...

Like I said above Charlie, Tom Knapp is a race hater. Only difference is that he hates everyone who is white.

Notice how he's so quick to criticize ethnically European people. But never do you hear any utterances out of his lips the least bit critical of Hispanics.

And in his eyes, Blacks can do no wrong.

It's hate whitey, 24/7, 365 days a year with Tom Knapp.

Charlie said...

And I will also say the Asian community in the San Gabriel Valley in southern CA is the least assimilated group I've witnessed. Taiwanese immigrants are a huge block and they seem far less concerned with learning English and assimilating than the Latino folks. They do however use next to no freebie social services. If one were racially inclined who would offend more LOL!

In any case I only mean to get your academic take :-) I try not to get to worked up over any of these things. They're out of our direct control anyway.

KN@PPSTER said...

Nice try, Eric, but no cigar.

On an individual basis, I do my damnedest to be color blind.

When it comes to mass demographics, I simply look for the facts, acknowledge them, and integrate them into my calculations as best I can.

The "ethnically European" American middle class has been pulling the lever for the welfare-warfare state for 80 years now, and it has been the majority/plurality in a plurality/majority political system that entire time.

If you don't like the America you're living in, and you want someone to blame for that America, why not blame the people who made it what it is?

The Right Guy said...

Eric:
Tom was right about the election. I am not sure I would challenge, at least today. :)

KN@PPSTER said...

Charlie,

Identity politics is a tough nut to crack. I'm just examining its impact on the 2012 election.

Here are some facts that are probably going to remain facts across several election cycles:

1) The Latino population is growing, and the Latino voter bloc will continue to grow, as a percentage of the total electorate, even if immigration is magically stopped completely.

2) Any party that wants to succeed is going to have to recognize (1) and do something about it.

In areas where the GOP was already marginal -- Ohio, Nevada, Florida -- its inability to grab at least an even share of the Latino vote cost it this presidential election.

If the GOP doesn't get its shit together on the subject, 20 years from now Texas and Arizona will be thoroughly blue states.

Charlie said...

"If the GOP doesn't get its shit together on the subject, 20 years from now Texas and Arizona will be thoroughly blue states."

I would bet on them getting their act together, self preservation and all :-) Electoral losers don't get campaign donations. The GOP need only look to its CA wingf to see the WRONG way to do it. Teh CA GOP is now dead. Whether it gets resurrected or the LP somehow replaces it is the only question. I'm glad the Dems got a super majority in the CA legislature. It will wake up the voters (and hopefully the GOP) with the level of suck it brings.

Eric Dondero said...

Jim, what I read in Tom's remarks between the lines, is what he's basically arguing for is the eventual extinction of European Americans. I get it. I can understand where he's coming from on that. He hangs out with leftists. So, naturally his views get skewed.

I'm just saying I don't agree with it.

Just because someone has a white complication does not make them inherently evil.

The Right Guy said...

He's right Eric and it has nothing to do with hating anything. Tom speaks the truth, numbers don't lie. Non-white people are out breeding whites everywhere in the world. In a couple hundred years, being purely white will be like being an african pigmy or some newly discovered amazonian native. It's the way it is. I did my part, most others haven't. They'd rather go to cancun every year and trade up the car every year than have a couple extra kids.

Eric Dondero said...

And you are right Jim. I worry about that too. We are going extinct. You did your part. I shamefully did not, and have to live with the consequences of my decision for the rest of my life.

Tom is right on this one. We are going extinct. He and his left friends are just making it happen way too soon.

And it doesn't help at all that he's all giddy about bashing white people at every opportunity. Honestly, it doesn't help at all. You have to admit that at least. He could be a bit more tactful.

The Right Guy said...

If Tom has an agenda, I would like to hear about it. He may, I just haven't heard it from his mouth yet.

Charlie said...

RE: Jim

They'd rather go to cancun every year and trade up the car every year than have a couple extra kids.

To be fair many working white families in America are facing the inflation monster. They can't afford to have multiple kids. They can't get the 'gubment freebies because they work. Meanwhile many of the brown tint have no problem reproducing under low living conditions and with 'gubment assistance.

Regardless, your demographic numbers are facts.

The Right Guy said...

Sure they can. They'd rather have the premium cable and a $300 a month mobile phone bill. I have 5 kids and we aren't wealthy. It just depends on what is important. Most people want to live like they are rich. Or another type of rich we used to call it that isn't politically correct.

Charlie said...

Is cell phones for each member of your family and HBO rich???

I'm not saying your point doesn't have validity. But at the same time I understand the couple who says we aren't going toil away just to reproduce. They may have other life aspirations. I guess you can question their values, but ultimately it's their choice. The brown folks of the world have a different view I guess.

Maybe that view is the result of being born into lower classes and unaware or less curious of life's other paths. I'm sure that statement would be considered racist LOL! "The dumb darkys don't know any better than having babies!" :-)

Eric Dondero said...

Firstly, I don't like the term "darkys," and really appreciate it if you wouldn't use it here at LR. You can if you want. Just saying, I prefer you not use it in my presence.

Secondly, you hit on a valid point. Yes, Hispanics have many more children. I believe it's a survival instinct. When you come from a land where medicine and hospitals are in short supply, it makes all the sense in the world to make more babies hoping some of them will eventually survive.

Good for them. I'm sure they're having a great deal of fun making those babies. Maztletoff is what I say.

The Right Guy said...

Well, I am sure some people pay $300-500 a month just in cable and phone bills. To me that is nuts. That's almost rent. Of course it's their money etc, but their actions have consequence for which they have not considered for a few useless conveniences. It's like the idiot I got on the phone where I used to work that complained she had to get internet access so her kids could use the school supplied laptop at home. Of course she had cable and smart phones, but the expense of internet? meanwhile the school is footing the bill for the computer. These idiots whined so bad that the school setup internet access in community centers so the kids could have internet access.

Whenever people get something that is unearned, it's never enough and they are ungrateful for what they have. It never get better until they have to earn it themselves, which in this entitlement society is something you won't see. It's all bread and circus.

Charlie said...

RE: Eric

"Darkys" used in sarcastic jest :-)

Charlie said...

...but their actions have consequence for which they have not considered for a few useless conveniences

There in lies the rub of libertarianism, it's their life though it may negatively effect us all. Speaking to my area of SoCal a lot of young people are facing $1200 rent for a 2 bedroom apartment and labor jobs that pay little. People who may have leaned in the direction of family building are making the choice not to because of the economic climate. If you told that same person they could purchase a home on a single income and a mother could stay at home like in the 60's - 70's they might think differently.

I think the Hispanic immigrants are so used to a lower standard of living it's not an issue and Blacks have become systemically dependent on the welfare state. Not to get all Ron Paul'y but the FED and the rising cost of living (via dollar debasement) deserve blame for our demographic shift.

KN@PPSTER said...

Jim,

I have all kinds of agendas, but none of them are rooted in any kind of racial or ethnic cause.

It's about numbers.

Ever since Nixon's "southern strategy" days, the GOP has worked hard to game "white identity politics," with diminishing success and as "whites" have become a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate.

And ever since the 60s, the Democrats have worked hard to game "minority identity politics," with increasing success, as minorities -- blacks, latinos, etc. -- have become a larger and larger portion of the electorate.

If Romney had managed to get the same percentage of the Latino vote as Bush did in 2004, he'd be announcing his cabinet appointments and starting to work on his inaugural speech right now.

And he was the ideal candidate to do that. His dad was born in Mexico. He's from a socially conservative religious background.

Picking Marco Rubio or Quico Canseco as a running mate might have helped, too.

Instead, he told the fastest-growing voter demographic that their relatives should "self-deport."

Jesus tap-dancing Christ -- I just saw that the GOP lost its Senate race in NORTH DAKOTA. Even I didn't predict that.

You guys are Fucked with a capital F, and you did it to yourselves.

The Right Guy said...

Again, it's the sense of entitlement. Americans don't think they have to do anything to survive. My forefathers came thousands of miles and risked a lot because they wanted opportunity. People today want opportunity given to them. They won't move to where the work is or cheaper housing/taxes/rent. No, they deserve to live where they are because they are entitled to it. We have a big country. find somewhere that works for you.

The Right Guy said...

Tom:
We agree. It's our fault. Romney miscalculated, may be so did we in choosing him. Whatever the case, unlike Obama, we will take the blame for our actions. On the other hand, I think it may be an opportunity too. If something doesn't kill your, there's an opportunity to learn and grow...

Eric Dondero said...

Okay Tom. We are fucked. We did it to ourselves. So, we don't agree that we did it to ourselves for the same reasons. But for the sake of argument, I'll concede you that point.

Now, my question to you is than why is it that you are continuously trying to pump us up and tell us all is not lost out of the other side of your mouth?

If this is a castrophe, and it is, than why tell us stupid shit like "hey, keep your spirits up... you can bounce back..."

Are you a sado-masochist? Do you want to give us hope on one side, and then crush it on the other?

Help me out here Tom. For all I know you could be giggling your ass off at our misery sitting there by your laptop with a cold one in your hand. Maybe you're enjoying the show, and in order to keep enjoying the show you have to give us a glimmer of hope, thus the "keep the spirits up guys" side.

Charlie said...

People today want opportunity given to them. They won't move to where the work is or cheaper housing/taxes/rent. No, they deserve to live where they are because they are entitled to it. We have a big country. find somewhere that works for you.

Well they are making it work for them, by not having kids. Yet another libertarian catch-22. On one hand we want a libertarian society of individual choice, but those choices may destroy any chance of that society.

The Right Guy said...

Just tell them they have a lot in common with Shakers.

Eric Dondero said...

Here's another thought Tom. If the Republican Party is now the diminishing "white people's party," why shouldn't the GOP start encouraging all conservatives and libertarians to start making more babies?

Okay, if we're losing in the demo battle, fine. There is a solution to that. We become like Hispanics in our breeding habits.

The Right Guy said...

Or we recruit them in our ranks.

Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Right Guy said...

Thomas:
By the fact that they are governors and such shows inclusion. You'll have to ask them though why they weren't chosen for VP or why they chose not to run for the big seat.

Thomas said...

Hi Eric,

Let me offer some perspective and consolation from a first generation Indian American Republican.

My parents came to this country in the 70s with almost nothing, and raised a family of 3. My family didn't mooch of the government, and I find it offensive when there is a blanket generalization of all immigrants being moochers.

A lot of the 3rd world immigrants come from a demographic that is very much classical Republican, socially and economically conservative. The problem in a nutshell is outreach. The Republican Party needs to start touting the Wests, Rubios, Martinezs, Loves, Jindals, and Haleys that they have. They need to show that the Republican Party is inclusive to everyone and every race. You'd be surprised of how many of my friends and family don't even know who Jindal or Haley was.

My advice to you, start a Draft Chris Christie 2016 movement right now. Pair Christie with Jindal,West,Haley,Martinez, or Rubio and you've got an unbeatable combination!

Keep your head up buddy, Romney was a horrible choice but there wasn't really a better alternative in the field.

Eric Dondero said...

Thomas, I thank you for that. But I disagree. Mitt Romney was the best candidate the Republican Party has ever had. Possibly in the Party's 150 year history. The guy was perfect from every perspective.

If we can't win with him, we are never going to win. Ever.

There's no hope for the future.

America died last night. We need to stop pretending that that's not what happened. The country is dead. Let's accept that, instead of trying to say shit like "it's okay... things are going to get better... there's still hope... if we only nominate so and so next time we can win..."

Eric Dondero said...

I'd also point out a lot of this discussion is now starting to get blatantly racist. What people are seemingly suggesting now, is that the problem with the Republican Party is white people. And if only the white people were somehow shut up and shut out, everything would be fine.

Why not the reverse. Why are we not hearing any discussion today about why it is that Hispanics are so embedded to big government? What's wrong with Hispanics? Why are they so in love with socialism?

I hear you. But I gotta tell you, you sound just a tad bit too anti-European American.

The Right Guy said...

Are you kidding Eric? Read about TR. He was quite the candidate. Palin has his sand, but not his sense.

Eric Dondero said...

Maybe Teddy Roosevelt was better. Perhaps John Freeman, the GOP's very first candidate before Lincoln.

But serious. Not in my lifetime have I ever been as inspired by a presidential candidate as I have with Mitt Romney. Yes, Palin. But she was running as VP.

I was not a big Reagan person. Always disliked him for the Drug War. Ditto Bushes.

But Romney was it for me. There really is no hope for the future of the Republican Party. If we couldn't win with him, we will never win again.

The Right Guy said...

I think a Rubio/Haley would be killer. Rubio/Jindal would be good as well. If West had won, a Rubio/West might work. Get the pattern? You could have thrown Christie in there, but his stock sunk in the GOP.

KN@PPSTER said...

Eric,

I'm not telling you "oh, everything is going to be all right." The GOP fucked up big-time, and I don't particularly care whether or not it recovers. But YOU do -- and I hate to see you so down in the dumps.

As far as voter demographics go, it's a simple matter of not putting all of your eggs in one basket when you only have a portion of that basket.

A significant proportion of white voters vote Democrat, and that is always going to be the case.

If the GOP is going to do identity politics and stake its future on carrying a bare majority of one shrinking demographic while telling the other demographics to sit and spin, the GOP is going to continue to lose.

The Democrats are winning because they carry a significant portion of the white vote and damn near all of the black vote, the latino vote, the Jewish vote, etc. They know how identity politics works.

If the GOP is going to succeed, it either needs to learn to do identity politics, or find a way to get beyond identity politics. Bush was actually making a decent start at the latter. McCain and Romney both blew it out their asses.

The Right Guy said...

Romney, McCain, Dole, HW, Ford, Goldwater, Nixon, Dewey...There's a long list of losers.

Will said...

"And you are right Jim. I worry about that too. We are going extinct. You did your part. I shamefully did not, and have to live with the consequences of my decision for the rest of my life."

Don't be so hard on yourself, Eric. As a younger man, I wanted children very much. But after seeing what a covert feminazi my ex wife was, I now count my blessings that we didn't have kids. It would have been a disaster! As my father used to say, "there are no mistakes, only learning."

The Right Guy said...

Yeah and there are no problems, only opportunities.

Chuck said...

America just got her arms and legs cut off. We'll survive...as something.

Suicide is always a shock. Who would've predicted that such a beautiful country would just choose to kill herself one Tuesday?

The Right Guy said...

Chuck:
Like this?

Chuck said...

Hardly.

The Right Guy said...

I tried

Rational Nation USA said...

For the losers understand it's the demographic changes and the resulting social/cultural changes. In other words it really is about the size of the tent. If rEpublicans and libertariana can understand and EFFECTIVELY target those groups, giving them good reasons to vote conservative/libertarian we'll survive. If not we become irrelevant. Pay close attention socons and neocons.