I don’t think it was very damaging at all - the main group of people who seemed to care were already voting for Obama.
Romney got 48% of the popular vote, despite running one of the worst presidential campaigns I have ever seen. He waffled on every single issue, made gaffe after gaffe, and came across as totally unlikable compared to Obama (note - I voted for neither of them). I don’t think there is a lesson to be learned here, I don’t think the Republicans fared nearly as badly as Democrats seem to want to believe. Despite a concerted campaign of obstructionism and putting their own agenda above the common good these last 4 years, they are still one more election away from controlling the whole system.
And if the economy doesn’t turn around in the next 4 years, I would bet money on a 2016 Republican sweep.
Let me see, Bachmann, santorum, Paul, Newt, Huntsman, Goodhair, hmm. Pretty sad lot. Well, except maybe for Huntsman.
I mean seriously, Huntsman. Yes, another Mo, but a quite level-headed guy who may well have given Obama a real challenge by not spewing divisive idiocy. He really would have been the sensible choice, which clearly shows the Rs’ lack of sense.
Huntsman lost all sense of credibility and self worth when he showered himself with confetti and balloons after getting 3rd place in New Hampshire shouting, “We did it!!!”
Yes, dude. Words have meaning. Slavery is slavery, and taxes are taxes, no matter how many times the nihilist PR machine that passes for conservatism these days tells you otherwise. Also, polls are pretty accurate even when they tell you things you don’t want to hear, and masturbating to a VHS tape of Reagan’s inauguration and chanting “There’s no place like home” won’t make it morning in America again.
That a surprisingly large percentage of Americans can use the word “Socialism” in a sentence, while still being utterly unaware of what the word actually means.
The economy sucked for the past 4 years and the Republicans did not sweep this year. This election should have been a cakewalk for them. My take from this is that they completely failed to get their economic message across, or perhaps they never had a message.
people don’t vote on a snapshot of the economy, they vote on the trajectory of the economy. And the economy is improving, maybe not as quickly as we would all like, but it is going in the right direction. If that reverses course during the 2016 election then I do expect the GOP will do well. But if in fact, it continues and we have a relatively strong economy in 2016 the only thing that may save the Republicans is their Gerrymandered House districts.
That reminds me of another good lesson. The Democrats need to start working on controlling as many state legislatures as possible after the 2020 elections. I think I heard that Pennsylvania had more people voting for a Democratic congressperson than a Republican one, but it’s delegation is split 15-3 Republican. Too lazy to look up the real numbers.
On a night where Obama’s success is being downplayed a lot in some Republican circles, he won more electoral votes than any Republican since GHWB. The electoral college seems to have a pronounced Democratic lean right now. That’s pretty important, and the reasons for the lean aren’t going to go away by 2016 or 2020. That doesn’t mean some sort of guaranteed Democratic win, but it doesn’t look particularly good for Team Red.
I watched Fox News on election night (I know, saying that is opening myself up to ridicule), and I heard some very interesting things. First off, Romney did not do as bad as most of you think. Looking at the raw vote totals, Obama is down almost 2 million votes from 2008, while Ropmney beat McCain by 6 million votes. One of the major points that Fox kept watching was the demographics of the electorate. What they were saying was that Romney’s model was an electorate that was 74-75% white(same as 2008), while Obama’s model was an electorate that was 72% white. They admitted in the end, after they called the election, that Obama’s model was correct, and that the demographic shift towards a more diverse electorate has continued. So Obama lost votes in a more friendly electorate, while Romney picked up votes in a less friendly electorate. This tells me that the greater enthusiasm among Republicans was actually there, and there was a down-tick in enthusiasm among Democrats, but not enough to swing the election. The conclusion that Fox came to, which to every one here will ring as true, but most will be surprised to hear it coming from Fox, was that Republicans need to stop ignoring minorities. Whether this will translate to actual policy we must wait and see…
Oops, looked at the wrong numbers. Obama was down 8 million, while Romney was down around 2 million, with Florida still needing to be added to the total. So R enthusiasm was about the same, while D enthusiasm was way down…
Actually, I don’t know if the number I am looking at includes Florida or not. I see 61 million to 58 million. Anyone know if that includes Florida?
I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers. Romney is about 2 million behind the McCain numbers from 2008 and Obama is close to 8 million below 2008, though there are still votes being counted.
Word. The sight of Karl Rove melting down on Fox News and insisting that it was a mistake for the network to call Ohio for Obama was amazing because you expect him, of all people, to be much more reality based.
I agree. The Republicans had an advantage in the House races because they were mainly in control during the last redistricting, but that doesn’t help them in the Senate races, especially when they nominate complete yahoos.
Oh, definitely. I only mentioned it as a possible contributing factor for why the Right didn’t get much bang for its buck with all the money they were able to raise.
But are you or your friends plutocrats? That’s who I was talking about.
Yes, and it’s frustrating because the conservative view of how the media should work is based on a false premise: that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. And the mainstream media learned that, try as it might to maintain an appearance of neutrality by adopting the View from Nowhere in order to appease conservatives, their efforts were futile in the face of such a fundamentally different view of the media. All the MSM managed to do was damage its own credibility.
I wouldn’t go that far. A campaign that has lavish funding available to it is at an advantage, so long as the money is deployed effectively. But that doesn’t mean I think the Republicans are going to be able to easily fix their problems before the next election. Campaigns are run by partisans, and the conservative information bubble ensures that their partisans will be anti-science and disdainful of math and statistics.
It’s not enough for the Right to resolve to engage women and Latinos. They have to put forth actual, credible policies.
I believe they add the votes to the overall total as they become available. Why would they wait for Florida to finish counting everything before adding in all their votes? Makes no sense.
I watched some Fox on election night too (it’s fun). Are you talking about when O’Reilly said traditional America is gone, that the white establishment doesn’t rule anymore?
Because I think you’re being generous calling that a realization that they need to embrace minorities. The next thing out of his mouth was that the electorate is ruled by people who are takers.
Of course, you might be talking about something much different.
Creationism in schools? Global warming denial? Tax cuts will solve the debt problem? Rich people need less tax to get the economy running? The military should get more stuff than the Pentagon asks for? Rape is a many splendored thing? Build a border fence? All that’s fine. Let’s talk about tactics.
