Appoint Barbie-No-Brains to the ticket, lose the election to someone with the brains and balls to go after him. Profit.
Worked a treat!
The problem every Republican candidate has had to deal with since 1988 is not being Ronald Reagan.
Bet him double or nothing on the Empire State Building and then set a trap.
So, OMGaBC, has any of this been of help? Any questions or followups?
The New Republic lies too.
If true, does that make it o.k. in your book? Do your standards run no higher than “If he can get away with it, I want to get away with it!!”
The thing about the “Generic republican candidate” is that when a pollster asks about that, if you are positively disposed towards Republicans at all, odds are what you actually think of is an IDEAL Republican. When people stop to think about a “generic Republican” they don’t stop and think “Well, he’ll probably have some anti-woman baggage, and he’ll probably be white, country-club rich, and boring…”
Fannie and Freddie had essentially nothing to do.with the financial collapse.
It is, but then, Obama was not a particularly strong incumbent. A halfway-decent candidate, and a well-run campaign, should have clobbered him.
The Republicans were unshakably convinced that this was true, and they were wrong. Obama’s approval rating is a bit above 50 percent, which is not at all amazing but it means the incumbent is in decent shape and will probably be re-elected. Unemployment is high and the economy is weak, but things have been consistently improving and the public knows it. And the public also held the Republican Party largely responsible for the economy because they held the White House when it crashed and the recession began. In 2012 the Republicans not only didn’t acknowledge this point, they dismissed it with maximum condescension. The ACA is controversial but many of its ideas are popular and the Republicans have never had any alternative. All of which is to say that Obama wasn’t unbeatable, but he held the advantage and Republicans apparently could not believe that was the case. They really had trouble believing that the public did not despise him as much as they did.
Preserving and expanding 2nd amendment rights is my number one issue. Republicans are, as a rule, more aligned with that.
But just because it is my number one issue, does not mean it is the only thing I care about. No real way to measure it, but I would say it represents about 15-20% of what is important to me when choosing a candidate.
And republicans are on the wrong side of the other 80-85% of what is important to me. Every. single. issue.
Thus I never vote for republicans. I donate money to democrats to defeat them, and write letters to the winners urging them not to pursue, or to roll-back gun restrictions. Because I am a doner, some of those letters might get read. I do get replies that are on topic, so at least staffers are skimming them for content so they can use the correct form letter.
Then you must be very happy- your side won on gun rights in the 90s. There are no prominent Democrats who vigorously advocate for any restrictions on guns.
And I say this as a Democrat, like you, who generally supports gun rights.
Yes, I think this is a key factor. Republicans talked it over and essentially said, “Well, none of us like Obama so he obviously has no real support. We just need to run a candidate who isn’t Obama and he’ll walk into the White House.”
This was ignoring a pretty fundamental fact: Barack Obama had been elected President in 2008. Obviously, there was a large group of people who did see voting for Obama as a possibility.
What the Republicans needed to do for 2012 was look back at 2008 and say “Okay, sixty nine million people voted for Obama in 2008 and only sixty million people voted for John McCain. What can we do in 2012 to convince five million people who voted for a Democrat last time to vote for a Republican this time?”
Not only did they not answer that question, I don’t think they ever asked it. And the result was that they ended up replaying the 2008 election.
Historically it’s easy to beat an incumbent in economic turmoil.
She needs to try again.
How often did she say this before the election?
I agree (and I think that I likely largely agree with Marley23, it’s a matter of semantics)…and I say this as someone who voted for Obama, twice.
The Republicans seemed to assume that the majority would vote against Obama, on general principles – and, thus, it didn’t matter who ran against him, so long as it was not Obama) And, had the economy not, indeed, shown signs of improvement, that might actually have been the case.
As a result, the GOP message fundamentally boiled down to, “he didn’t do a good enough job, our guy can do better”, with little in the way of specifics (because, clearly, they didn’t think that they needed them). Combine that with a candidate who polled below Obama on most every issue other than the economy (and even that was basically a tie), and you see the GOP pissing away their opportunity.
The last few days of the campaign, all we were hearing from them in rebutting the data and polls and reason was that they had a lot of “enthusiasm.” What this meant was “Yeah, we may be falling short in all the numbers but our advantage is WE REALLY HATE OBAMA, and you just kinda sorta dislike Romney.” I don’t know if this means that they thought their voters would be motivated to show up at the polls (which the polling organizations said they wouldn’t) or if they thought somehow that if someone REALLY hated a candidate his vote would count twice. I think the latter sort of magic was what they secretly believed in. Essentially, the election came down to the failure of racism.
When you compare ol’ Ron’s actions in office to how the modern GOP paints him, even Ronald Reagan isn’t Ronald Reagan.
They thought the minority vote would fall off. Their belief was that black and Latino voters would be disappointed with Obama or just less motivated, neglecting to pick up on the fact that they weren’t and their own policies were off-putting or flat-out terrifying to the same people.
I think its pretty clear that one of those general principles was racism. Bill O’Reilly vocalized what was at the heart of the Republican view of the election, that Obama is not a “traditional American.” What stumps me is how the Republicans managed to ignore the fact that America had elected a black man in 2008.
I know this view doesn’t apply to the OP of this thread. But deep down many of the conservative standard bearers and their followers just couldn’t believe that a black man could be elected (not twice, anyway). More than anything else, this explains the Republicans’ certainty that they would win the election and their astonishment when they didn’t. Looked at through this lens, a lot of the most bizarre behavior of the Republicans begin to make sense.