Friday, November 07, 2008
|
|
CNN FINDS 26 MILLION MISSING VOTERS!
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
2:22 AM
|
|
Great, isn't it, that after two days CNN has finally admitted that the big talk of a huge turnout was a fraud and a mistake? American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that "voter turnout in Tuesday's election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago-- or at most has risen by less than 1 percent." Remember the claims -- on their website as recently as Thursday afternoon-- that 148 million Americans had voted,even though they'd only managed to count some 122 million votes? Today (Thursday) on my radio show I begged, repeatedly for someone to explain the missing 26 million voters. Now this American University Study declares all the prior nonsense inoperative and claims that only 126.5 million to 128.5 million actually voted, though even these dramatically reduced figues still seem to me inflated. If you add up the numbers cast for all Presidential candidates they don't come up to 126.5 million.... still several million below that number. But for the sake of argument, let's use their numbers. The authors of the study blame the lower than expected turnout on a "downturn in the number and percentage of Republicans going to the polls" and thereby echo the claims of many bitter conservatives that GOP voters failed to show up for McCain the way they showed up for Bush. But as John Adams said (and Ronald Reagan echoed), "facts are stubborn things." If the American University report is correct, and AT LEAST 126.5 million voters showed up, and if 28.7% of them said they were Republicans, then that means a turnout of at least 36,300,000 Republicans. And how many GOP voters showed up last time to support President Bush? With 122 million voters going ot the polls, and 30.0% of them self-identifying four years ago as Republicans, that means 36,600,000 Republican voters. In other words, that makes for an insignificant difference of 300,000 fewer Republicans, in an election that Obama won by some 7,000,000. Moreover, if you use the higher numer provided by American University, suggesting that 128.5 million voters cast their ballots this year, then that means that 36,880,000 Republicans participated-- an INCREASE of Republican voters of 280,000, and not a decline at all! That would be amazing, given the evidence that many Americans switched their registration and orientation from GOP to Independent or Democrat during the frustrating second term of Bush. The numbers, in fact, suggest that a higher percentage of all those who consider themselves Republican turned out for McCain than showed up for George W. Bush. Even if the numbers of Republicans at the polls stayed virtually the same, there were fewer people in the population at large who identified as Republican, so fewer GOP'ers to draw from. That means that since McCain and Palin drew the same number of Republican voters from a smaller overall pool of Republicans, they generated at least as much enthusiasm as did President Bush four years ago.
Moreover, McCain (according to the Edison-Mitofsly standard exit polling used everywhere) got 90% of the Republican vote-- compared to Obama's 89% of the Democratic vote. In other words, McCain lost because he lost independents by a sizable margin. He didn't blow the election because Republicans failed to turn out for the McCain-Palin ticket, or because they turned away in big numbers to some other candidate. Those Republicans who threatened to stay home because of their distaste for McCain, or to vote for some fringe candidate joker, never materialized in substantial numbers -- in the same way that the disgruntled Hillary Democrats who threatened to stay home or vote for McCain didn't seem to materialize in any substantial numbers. Conservatives who want a more ideologically pure party may not welcome the truth, nor will liberals who made ridiculous (and unsubstantiated claims) about an Obama "revolution" and a huge surge in turnout. But hte facts are becoming unmistakable, undeniable: the turnout this time was virtually identical to 2004, with almost an identical percentage of self-identified Republicans (28.7% this time and 30.0% four years ago). Independents, meanwhile, comprised some 40% of this year's electorate. McCain lost those independents decisively to Obama, while Bush won the independents against Kerry. That fight for the uncommitted, non-partisan voter determined the outcome of this year's election, and not any vagaries of GOP (or Democratic) turnout. ------------------------------------------------------
The piece from CNN's "Political Ticker" is linked here......
|
|
The ones who threatened to stay home weren't republicans...
They were Conservatives.
...I can understand how you wouldn't recognize them.
- MuscleDaddy |
|
|
Medved seems to believe that those who classify themselves as Republicans are the ideologically Conservative. WHAT UTTERLY CLUELESS BUNK!!! He can't seem to grasp that the TRUE CONSERVATIVES are among the INDEPENDENTS who left the GOP and find the name, "Republican" or "GOP" repugnant. True Conservatives more closely align with either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. WE BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE DICTATES OF THE US CONSTITUTION, and as such, find both of the main two parties in DC to be repugnant Socialists who haven't one iota of a clue as to what Conservatism even remotely means. We are the Independents who will NO LONGER vote for the lesser of two evils knowing you still get evil either way. We either stayed home or voted 3rd Party. The GOP disowned us a LOOOOOOONNNGGGG time ago, and we have reacted accordingly. We do not fall any longer for the GOP's predictable Talk Radio Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling!" screeching and fearmongering tactics biennially at election time. When all the GOP can do at election time is tell us how bad the Democrat is but say not one damn thing about anything Conservative they stand for, what is the purpose for voting for this useless more of the same party. The GOP could not even credibly differentialte themselves from the policies of the Democrats this time; that's pathetic! |
|
|
I've always liked and respected Rick Santorum. He is articulate, sharp and most importantly, genuinely conservative. Mitt Romney is articulate, sharp, but has only been moving right recently. Those tapes from his run against Ted Kennedy will haunt him forever. Since Mitt's movement has all been in the right direction, I could have held my nose for Romney this time around. I did not vote for McCain. |
|
"The more outrageous the claim, the greater the burden of proof" fits here.
Which is why "The bigger the lie, the easier it is for people to believe it" were such wise words (was it Geobbels that said that?)
I don't need a copy of the article. I have seen it and much more like it. People interested enough to verify your claims could visit their local John Birch Society chapter and see what they have. They have been collecting documention of it going back over 80 years ago when this all started. You don't have to join them to read the archives, just walk in and tell them what you are interested in researching.
One thing people might be very interested in is http://www.disarmamenthub.org/ This is one of the first U.N. objectives which actually spawned a bill that made it quite far within our own legislative branch. It also sparked the McCarthy investigations. The JBS archives have a lot of information on this including the text of the original bill that they claim did somehow secretly pass. I don't know about that, but the bill is pretty scary in itself and even more scary that it actually made it to a vote.
I am not a member, but have visited the local chapter myself. |
|
|
What is the Palin Effect? Well for me, it was the complete shutting off of the television because I could not stand hearing her screechy voice, her inane comments and pathetic interviewing skills. Though the Palin effect was very strong, it could not compare with the McCain effect. John McCain may be a war hero, a Vietnam vet and former prisoner of war an civil servant, but he also was a repeated traitor to conservative values most importantly defense via a strong boarder. Mexican Americans that can vote in America, do want the boarder closed, especially in the southwest. I did not vote for McCain, nor would I. I know what I am getting with Obama, and though I do not like it, I know my enemy. With McCain, he is the enemy within. His best friends are on the left not the right and he probably would have been better off with Joseph Lieberman than Palin, but America would have been worse of for it. Thank God for prayer, because we are all going to need it over the next for years of trial and tribulation. So in the end, Mitt Romney should have been the nominee, or at least the VP pick, Palin did not help the ticket among those who are more conservative than partisan, and hopefully the Carter effect will lead to another Reagan. I am thinking that Mitt Romney will be that figure. I would love to see it be Rick Santorum, but Romney at this time seems most likely. |
|
for an Obama win. He was chosen to run, to beat Hillary, and go on to gain the white house with his elitist America-hating, Socialist wife and there was nothing that anyone was going to do to top it.
There is an insedious plan for a "One World Order" which is to be controlled by the UN
of which the United States is a big part.
Check out old archives from 1994 for the Washinton Times and read an article titled
"the UN's Killer Conference"
if you don't believe it. In that article which is quite lengthy, it actually describes their plans of euthanasia, infanticide, "culling the human herd" and many other frightening plans they have for peeople across the planet so they can 'rule' not govern us.
Anyone who will want to accuse me of making it up can send a self addressed envelope to me and I will gladly send you a copy. Obama is the man they chose to get their evil plan implemented, and millions of ignorant fools walked right into that plan ~eyes wide open~; now the rest of us will deal with it. God help us. |
|
|
Flat wrong! Around 115M people voted in 2004. This time best estimates put it at 133.3M, a 15% increase. Voter turn-out this year is only exceeded by the 1960 election. I have no idea where AU is getting it's numbers, but they are not correct. Remember, this is solely "one" of many studies with numbers. |
|
The media said that millions more voted than actually did. That was designed so that the Dems in charge of voting could add as many votes as needed for Obama to win. Either that or that many really did vote and the Dems in charge threw out as many Republican votes as they had to in order to give Obama the victory.
I'll go put my tinfoil hat back in the closet now.
|
|
If you check the turnouts for the primaries you will find that Democratic turnout far exceeded Republican turnout often as much as by a 2 to 1 margin. The only exceptions were Utah and Nebraska.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008P.html
Furthermore, the only numbers that I could find estimating 2008 presidential election voter turnout was here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
They estimated that total number of voter was no greater than in 2004! That means that Republican numbers must have decreased or else they would have won!
The election was lost long before it was held. Republicans had left the party and showed no interest in the primaries. It wasn't that the "undecideds" weren't attracted to the Republican candidate, it was that Republicans themselves had given up on the party.
Medved may be right that the percentage of Republicans that voted for McCain was the same, but only because of the number of Republicans that abandoned the party. Those were the millions who didn't vote for McCain. Did they vote for Democrats or did they stay home? Considering that the voting age population grew by many millions and that Democratic registrations soared, I would say it is most likely that the ex-Republicans stayed home.
The reason for that was Medved's beloved GW Bush who betrayed us with lies. No, not lies about WMD's, lies about his favoring a smaller government.
|
|
"Are you so dense that you can't read, Vindex?"
Apparently so, because I just couldn't "read between the lines" enough to actually see all that extra BS you wrote that can't be found in or even really have anything to do with the actual blog entry above.
Without reading between the lines, I stand by my observation. I guess I am dense AND stubborn. |
|
I must confess that these numbers mitigate against my initial thoughts regarding the outcome of this election.
But, the facts being the stubborn things they are, isn't it interesting that the more conservative Bush won more independent votes than McCain? |
|
I guess the only thing important to you is the color of O's skin, and not the method by which he got there. And by your attitudes you don't give a rats patootie about the Constitution do you? It's all about you, it's all about what you can scam from the taxpayers.
For 8 years all we heard was hate and vitriol from the left, they even the elected DemonRATS
vilified out military and you guys didn't care that they are the firewall between another hit and safety. I'm not going to rehash 2000 or '04 but I won't forget what you did to Pres. Bush nor will I forget that without voter fraud NO
DemonRAT thug can ever win an election, not even dog catcher..what does THAT tell about you?
When I see that he ran an honest campaign (which for DemonRAT lefties is an oxymoron) and got the
W.H. honestly then I may relent but I doubt we will see it. And I want to know why he felt the need to HIDE his Birth Certificate when people questioned his right to run..my mother used to say "actions speak louder than words." and it looks like he's hiding something from the people.
Come back here in a year or two and tell us how you really feel and I use feel because DemonRATs don't think. You guys already got stiffed by the campaign when you wanted your pay..ya think there's a message there with all the billions
he amassed form illegal sources? You may call Bush illegitimate but Bush never got illegal
untraceable money from overseas. By the way,
did illegal Aunt Zeithuni get to vote..shame if she didn't. |
|
annfan-
I am well aware of what Rush has said, and when he said it. My point is that he is dead wrong on this one, and further has been disingenuous. He had as much to do with the McCain nomination as the MSM. He clearly had a personal issue with Huckabee, and decided to use his influence to wreck the Huckabee campaign. His actions were undisciplined, and had some pretty severe side effects.
In the context of the Medved piece, I think we need to remember how we got a moderate nominated. It was a self inflicted wound, not something done to us. Rush simply has refused to take responsibility for his actions. He hit Huckabee hard at the time that he could do the most damage. It is funny that he so savagely attacked Colin Powell for doing the same. |
|
Republicans do no need a purist as Michael constantly opposes, but an inspirational leader who can convince the masses that conservative ideas such as small government and free market will work.
McCain clearly lost on ideas during this election. I have had this nagging feeling ever since he made "change" the center piece on his Convention speech. That was Obama's slogan!
He did not sell the idea that government regulation was precisely what kicked off the subprime mortgage crises. He did not sell the idea that free market is the cure for the soaring health care costs (he tried, but did not explain it very well). He failed to contrast his tax policy with Obama's, until Joe the plumber came along. Joe did help, but it was too little, too late. People had already brought into Obama's promise of reviving the economy through "change".
To be fair, Obama had it easy this time, all he needed was to sell the idea of "change", which he did artfully, on the back of an unpopular President. To top it off, he had benefit of the not-so-distance memory of prosperity under a popular Democratic administration.
McCain did have a difficult task, and he failed. What we need is someone who has the ability to sell these ideas. A purist is not necessary, but instead of pandering to the moderates by trying to become a Democrat-lite, we need to lure them over with our ideas. A Democrat-lite will never defeat a real Democrat.
|
|
|
If the undecided/independents/non-affiliated voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, how do we persuade these groups that conservative ideas and policies are better than the alternative? |
|
Gary, I believe you haven't paid much attention. My experience in watching and reading is that most conservatives are accepting Obama as President and are not begrudging his election at all. Rather than the pointless and destructive calls of a "stolen election", Republicans are looking to themselves to find out why Obama won rather than the evil doers on the otherside, which was the approach of the Democrats after the last two elections.
Republicans has a whole, not withstanding some nutcases on these blogs, while believing his political phylosphy to be flawed, are wishing Obama well and hope that his policies succeed. I don't doubt that Liberals care about helping people I just believe the help they want to give leads to destruction of the will and independence of the individual.
|
|
This very liberal Texan may be , to you, dumb as dirt for seeing this exactly as it is..........Obama won, won big , and if you were half as patriotic as you all have accused me of not being, you would be congratulating him on his victory and wrapping your head around the fact that business wil continue to be conducted, only without the free rein to abuse that has been the hallmark last 8 years, America will improve, because Americans at heart have not liked the tone their country has taken and will now hopefully take a better tack. You all worry about petty shekels, hoarding your own gods(those things you truly value) while decrying the dangers to our souls like the whited sepulchres you are.
What is YOUR belief in America? Is it a way to wealth? Or is it a way to a better life? Is it equality, freedom, and yes(that dirty word) Hope?
I see from the comments above greed and despair that Obama won. |
|
|
Obama won! If he one by 1 vote, he still won. Sore losers! |
|
Are you so dense that you can't read, Vindex?
The article says that CNN got it wrong and then had to retract their BS.
No one, least of all Medved, is saying that CNN got ANYTHING right. And if they did, they did so reluctantly and after trying to spin the story unsuccessfully.
Now.....just who is it that's "crazy"?
|
|
Were it not for Sarah Palin exciting the base, it would have gone even worse for McCain. I voted for McCain/Palin, but as much as I've listened to Michael Medved these last few months touting McCain's conservative reciord, he was absolutely terrible at selling those conservative principles. Joe the Plumber did a much better job.
And while I can certainly agree that a conservative can't win without the independents, someone has to sell the independents on those core conservative ideals being better for the country as a whole. McCain was unable to.
I'm praying for Jindal/Palin in 2012 and throwing the elitists in the Republican party out on their a##es. |
|
Obviously you don't listen to Rush very much.
He has been saying that about McCain since BEFORE McCain won the nomination.
Rush is right - McCain WAS nominated, basically, by the MSM and Democrats.
Do your homework.
|
|
Jobless rate hits 6.5%
Nation's jobless rate jumps to 6.5%, a 14-year high, as cumulative 2008 reduction in nonfarm payrolls nears 1.2 million jobs.
The big three is laying off everybody except the janitor,
I think we are in deep do do!! Obamanation does not have the skills to handle this and you all know this!! He is calling all advisors, maybe he will call greenspan, he gots in maybe he has a plan to get us out!! heck, Andrea Mitchell is uglg enough to run a dog off a gut wagon surely greenspan sits up at night pondering the fate of the economy!! |
|
Jobless rate hits 6.5% in October
Nation's jobless rate jumps to 6.5%, a 14-year high, as cumulative 2008 reduction in nonfarm payrolls nears 1.2 million jobs.
Get ready! here comes the depression,
Holdem or foldem.
The big three is laying everybody except the janitor. |
|
Republic, inalienable righs given by God to man, man can not take these rights.
Democracy, the lowest form of existance, rights created by man and given by man to man and taken away by man.
Democracy is mob rule, democracy killed Socrates
Democracy killed Christ.
Beware of any democracy! |
|
They don't exist, they care about today and themselves tomorrow means nothing to a rat, a century from now, they could care less what the face of this once great nation will look like.
The fence will never be built; I guarantee that money will wind up in the hands of some welfare victim. The State Department will receive orders to permit million more to enter from Africa, obamanation will want his entire country Kenya to enter and become eligible for welfare immediately.
We should demand a gov, web page just to show us the citizens who is being allowed to enter and where they are from and this should be required by law but, guess what? We have no control over the very item that will destroy our own homeland. Immigration is totally left up the Administration that occupies the white house. So that means we are screwed to the wall. Obamanation said the USA is no longer a Christian Nation, you do remember those words right? He spoke evil of the bible, you do remember that do you not? What is elected to be in the white house soon is the most destructive thing the American people have ever done outside of slavery itself.
|
|
Well the biggest drop in the stock market after an election in history. Gee i wonder why?
real confidence in the new Prez eh ? LOL These morons who voted for Obama because they think he is going to punish the rich are now watching the rich cashing in thier stock before Obama raises the capital gains tax by 33 %. These idiots will now watch as layoffs all across the country will now proceed. By the time the first four years of his term are over you will see a double digit unemployment rate and let all the idiots who voted for him go find a poor man to give them a job. And all those Jews who voted for Obama are going to find out what they voted for in relation to his support of Israel.
|
|
|
From MetaFilter: "The day after a senator from Illinois, is elected president, the Pick 3 lottery in Illinois comes up 666. It's happened before, notably in Pennsylvania (12 times, including one time as part of a scam and once earlier this year, in Maryland. Some are jokingly (I hope) calling him the antichrist as a result". OH DEAR. |
|
Well the biggest drop in the stock market after an election in history. Gee i wonder why?
real confidence in the new Prez eh ? LOL These morons who voted for Obama because they think he is going to punish the rich are now watching the rich cashing in thier stock before Obama raises the capital gains tax by 33 %. These idiots will now watch as layoffs all across the country will now proceed. By the time the first four years of his term are over you will see a double digit unemployment rate and let all the idiots who voted for him go find a poor man to give them a job. And all those Jews who voted for Obama are going to find out what they voted for in relation to his support of Israel.
|
|
the supposed ability of any of the four candidates (Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain), involved to reach across the politcal spectrum to reach consensus?
It is sort of like a baseball season. During the course of a season a team will win 40 games and lose 40 games no matter how good or bad a team is. It is the other 80 games that make a difference. In politics each party will attract around 35 percent not matter now good or bad the candidate is. It is the other 30 percent that matter. |
|
I am inclined to agree with Shelby Steele that white guilt and the idea of making history is enpough to explain this. Fortunately, that is a one shot game that cannot be repeated.
I saw yesterday that single women decided the election. Dick Morris predicted that. We had the woman candidate but I suppose her know-it -all handlers were too busy reinforcing their own ignorant stereotypes about foreign policy and civics to let her appeal to women. When Cameron spoke of her lack of "knowlegability" in civics I winced. She is civics incarnate on municipal and state functions. How does a critique that outrageous just get repeated? |
|
Can't believe I actually have to do this:
Conservatism: the individual is paramount over the state, rights are inherent and not granted, and natural law is the rule.
Quaint and unsophisticated, I know, what with post-modern deconstructionist modes of alientation and "negative rights" holding sway in the oh-so tony law schools, but, there it is.
|
|
Rush is now playing the part of revisionist historian, and saying that McCain was nominated by the MSM and democrats. This is far from truth. The truth is closer to the fact that he chose to destroy the conservative that had the momentum to bring the party together, and allowed McCain to somehow stumble to the nomination.
What caused the loss? Just when McCain had momentum, and was starting to pull away, the whole bailout mess happened. McCain freaks out, acts panicked, and goes to Washington to make sure that the bailout gets passed. He drops like a rock, and never recovers because America know he will not take care o the money. We are supposed to be the smart nerds that take care of the money and keep everyone safe. Democrats are the cool guys that care about people.
Reagan won by being that guy that takes care of the money and keeps everyone safe. Bush sr. won by being Reagan's third term. He lost when he was not seen as the nerd that takes care of the money. Dole was never seen as the guy that would better take care of the money. Bush jr. won his first term by being the guy that was going to fix the money problems. He won his second term by being the guy that was going to keep us safe. In the Presidential elections that I have been witness to, we ran 5 times as conservatives, 4 times as moderates. We won 5 times, and lost 4. This ain't rocket science, folks.
|
|
Insults are pointless and do as much to make the insulter look foolish as the insulted, why engage in them?
As for this definition of conservatism that you keep asking for all over the place. It is a ridiculous question clearly meant to entrap people who can't, off the top of their head, give a comprehensive answer-this would include myself and most of us. But do you really think that because I, or anyone else, can't give you this big definition, that it means conservatism is any less valid.
Despite the fact that I'm sure you already know what conservatism is, I'll take the bait. I can tell you some things that conservatism is not: it is not wealth redistribution, it is not bigger government, it is not more government benefits, it is not government run healthcare, it is not bailouts for corporations. Conservatism is smaller and leaner government, it is encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves by giveing them help on the way to independence (as opposed to handing out never ending welfare and other benefits), it is lower taxes for producers so people can spend their own money which will foster economic growth for all (contrary to the notion that "rich" people just hoard all their money), it is lower corporate taxes to encourage companies to do business here rather than taking it elsewhere in the world...I could go on and on but this is a sufficient start. And that's what my answer is, just a start. Anyone care to add? |
|
|
So, if CNN has it right, we could make the argument that 22 million McCain votes were suppressed/discarded, right? |
|
First, rushshambula is right in the Rush Limbaugh killed the Huckabee campaign. He did not endorse anyone, and maintains that he was more a Fred head, but clearly he was leading the charge for Romney down the stretch.
I still have no idea why Rush decided to kill the Huckabee campaign, but he did. His reasons that he gave on air were flimsy at best. When Huck won Iowa, he had conservatives starting to consolidate around him and had a ton of momentum. It was Rush's attack on him, then echoed by others in talk radio, that ended that momentum, and turned into the splitting of the conservative vote.
Here in Iowa, we get a chance to get to know these guys. We spend time with all of them, get to talk with all of them multiple times, and get a great chance to gain an understanding of who they are over a period of a year in most cases. The process starts in meetings of 10-20 people and the candidate. No fluff, no teleprompters, just simple retail politics. The typical Republican caucus goer has spent a lot of time with each candidate, and has discussed the candidates with everyone they know extensively. At the end of the process, the crowds attracted by each candidate that has a chance gets into the hundreds or even thousands. This is where we get to see how these will do when they go to the rest of the country. Huckabee took a long time to win me over, but he did... along with a whole bunch of us. Even though he was greatly outspent, he had won over the conservatives by the time of the caucus. Mitt Romney lost Iowa simply because he spent millions on negative adds, simply did not come off as credible, and generally acted like a jerk that expected to be able to buy the win. The whole Mormon thing had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
of the unscrupulous iceberg that will eventually come in over the next few months. Will it be enough to get Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals out of the White House? No, but at least it will help to explain why he made it to Washington. |
|
Got to love your empirical thinking. He fooled everyone besides your dumba$s
Anyway. Can someone define conservatism?
|
|
|
Of the late season hurricane in the Carribean...it's a result of the enormous spin Medved has got going here! |
|
|
because bush ran the goverment as a tax and spend democrat coupled with an unpopular war. all heard was we want change and most of them did not give a damn about what kind of change they were getting |
|
what I had believed all along...
McCain as Presidential candidate or Palin as VP were not what caused the GOP to lose......
really no reason to blame either.....
fact is.......there are just not enough Republicans......
the Dems won the Hispanic vote 2 to 1.....
they are, by far, the fastest growing segment of American society.......
the legal Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for the Dems......
McCain and others wanted to grant the illegal Hispanics amnesty??????
until the GOP can find a way of at least splitting the Hispanic vote, we're toast.... |
|
Obama was a better BS Dazzler!
He got all the fools to vote for someone who was a community organizer by Dazzling them with BS!
That is why Mccain lost! |
|
Secure the base, then let the base convince independents. McCain NEVER had the base, Palin did. The foot soldiers of the GOP voted enmasse for Palin, not McCain.
McCain's liberalism compromised his ability to draw distinctions between he and any other liberal. Fannie Mae could have won McCain the presidency. Easily. McCain could have called out names for the financial crisis and promised to hold them accountable. He didn't. He could have pointed to Fannie Mae as an example of failed socialism. He didn't.
The base wants a candidate who can enunciate conservatism. McCain trying to pretend to be a conservative was like fingernails on a chalk board. The sooner liberal Republicans have to hold their noses and vote for a conservative, instead of ALWAYS vice versa, the better for the GOP.
PS: Michael, good luck winning races by trying to "out-liberal" liberals. If the primaries (which need serious discussion) produce another liberal like McCain, I won't donate one dime or one minute to the GOP. Screw 'em.
|
|
but I admit I'm tired and preoccupied today so someone explain this to me, I'm confused. If voter turnout was "the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago-- or at most has risen by less than 1 percent." and if just as many (or more) GOP'ers turned out for McCain, then why did he lose?
And all this whole tirade proves to me is that Republicans held their nose and voted for McCain (or Palin) while the independents chose to go for Obama. So tell me why we should be moving to the middle when McCain has just given us a clear demonstration of what moderates will do when given a choice between Democrat and Democrat-lite. Of course, lots of other factors were at play in this election cycle....which is why all these numbers games are questionable. |
|
You are a liar.
I don't know if you are a plant (operative, not flora) or if you actually expect any loyal conservative to buy the drivel that just fell from you. Rush pushed Romney? I'm sorry... have you ever LISTENED to Rush as you've claimed to?
Media/Schmedia... we stop buying and they start folding. It's just a little slower than some of us would like.
So, one side presents a biased view, and you want some sort of government regulation (fairness doctrine) to smooth out the ruffles? I'm sorry... you call yourself Republican?
You pal, are why we lost. Looking at you, I can't tell the difference between right and left. You make me dizzy.
It'll be a struggle over the next 36 months weeding out you little cancerous lesions on the body politic... you hide well.
You're not welcome in my party... just go.
|
|
People have been picking on the MSM due to their precieved lessening influence on american opinion and politics, and some of the viewership numbers may give creedence to those claims, however it looks like the MSM (along with CNN MSNBC) continues to have a substantial influence over public opinion. When they run 50% less stories on one candidate than another, add to that when they do run stories on said candidate they are 70% negative, it is difficult to overcome. I would think print media was just as lopsided as well including internet sits of the MSM.
So before you dismiss the MSM as having dwindled influence, it still appears they actually do still carry a big stick.
Any fairness doctrine discussion will have to include the MSM as well. If I am Rush, Sean, O"Rielly, etc, I would be pointing these facts out and demanding the same out of the MSM. I don't believe the MSM will sit back and allow the government to censor them. Talk Radio has to make this argument linking the MSM with a leftward bias if they are to fend off the fairness doctrine. |
|
But if you are going to start down the Palin lost McCain the independent voter thing I am going to call BS on you right off. George Bush and McCain cost McCain the independents.
Every single top issue from the economy, job, global warming, immigration Obama and McCain were the SAME on. Even more so the last minute effort to expose Obama on his cap in trade stance and how it would effect the coal industry, the SAME. That is why it came out two days before hand in the hopes they could yell 'fire' in the theater.
Independents aren't stupid either in fact some of the reasons for their non-party status is their grasp on the issues. McCain ran from his record on energy, they knew his policies were identical to Obama. Same with McCain coming out say he wants to close the borders, BS he wants to be president and he wants amnesty, they know this.
The problem with talk radio is that Rush thinks he is always right. He's not, maybe 75% of the time but he and Sean and the rest caused this whole thing by trying to shove Mitt down our throats and then blaming thoise of us who voted Huck for McCain. The silver lining to the 'fairness doctrine' will be not having talkers play MSM opperatives distorting the records of GOP candidates in the primary in 2012. Conservatism was here before Rush and will remain when he is gone. I love him and his show I listen to it daily, but his insistance that Huck was worse than McCain and that Mitt was a reincarnation of Reagan was an out and out LIE!!! |
|
CNN says something that you like, and suddenly the Communist News Network (as you folks liked to call them) is a bastion of truth.
However, when they say something you don't like, they are a bunch of incredible liars?
Hmm...
And you wonder why the people think you are crazy? |
|
Medved recently wrote a column about how ideological "purees" were destroying the Republican party. He was right, but not for the reason he cited. It was the militantly non-ideological, "Big Tent" people who drove out the pro-liberty wing of the party.
Using Medved's own argument here, that McCain got a larger percentage of registered Republicans than Bush got, means that those who remained in the party were the non-ideological types who couldn't object to McCain's authoritarian record.
Non-ideology is what made massive deficits, Medicare Part D and an expanded federal role in education possible, not to mention warrantless searches and the Patriot Act.
Did this appeal to the "center"? Obviously not because the Republicans got whipped. Offered the choice between socialism and socialism-lite the people chose the full strength brand.
From 2000 to 2004 there was an increase in the number of voters of 16 million to a total of 122 million. If we take Medved's number seriously (of less than 126 million) then this increase was only 4 million voters. That means that this election had a far smaller increase than the previous election, and that suggests that a large number of people simply stayed away from the polls.
What group saw no real difference between the candidates that might inspire someone to vote?
The answer is those whose main wish with respect to government is to be left alone, i.e. what used to be called the "liberty wing" of the Republican party or sometimes, the Goldwater/Reagan wing.
If Medved hadn't spent all his time hobnobbing with the power elite, he would know that. Perhaps he does know and is glad that we're gone since we don't support his desire to use the government to control the culture.
In any event, if Medved wants to continue his relationship with the powerful he will have to return to the Democratic Party where he belongs.
Don't slam the door when you leave. |
|
|
I think the independents were affected by the constant drumbeat of the press against McCain and especially Palin. The campaign was more defensive and didn't manage the legitimate attacks against Obama/Biden by communicating why McCain not just "Nobama". Without Palin, McCain would have been lucky to get 40%. Communicating the goodness of conservate altervative is something the independents will want to hear if communicated correctly. This was an election that was almost impossible for a Republican to win. McCain/Palin did as well as could be expected. Time to get the message out and be ready to get back on track. |
|
Don't forget there's still plenty of pent-up anger about the bailout, and some Washington heads gotta roll, and Obama-Pelosi-Reid ain't gonna do it in the next 2 years. The Dems in Congress are engaged in a massive cover-up of their role (ideologically-driven, lobbyist-enabled bad mortgages). Something to start tapping into (and one of the McCain campaign's failures, as O'Reilly pointed out).
I'm sure this is something all Republicans can rally around. |
|
|
How about renaming the party the "Reformican" party? |
|
For the hard right people out there, if you take purism to its logical conclusion, then you should have voted for Bob Barr or Ron Paul. Then it would have been 95% to 5%.
As for principles, let's not forget that McCain and Palin both stood/stand firmly for a timeless principle that can help rebuild the party: REFORM. This was part of the electricity of the ticket when McCain and Palin were ahead in the polls, before the economic crisis. They EMBODIED reform, and that means putting ethics ahead of party affiliation or party ideology. The failure of congressional Republicans to do so is part of the reason why the "Republican brand" was so damaged, which in turn is one of the main reasons McCain lost (not because he was too moderate).
If 2 years of one-party rule leads to even more corruption (e.g., cover-up of Frank, Dodd, et. al.'s cozy relationship with Fannie/Freddie), REFORM could be the ticket for victory in 2010. I am sure many will agree that Obama is NOT a reformer (nor are the Democratic congressional leaders), and this truth will become evident enough within 2 years.
Thus, REFORM (or "ethics") should be etched into the Mount Olympus of Republican principles, along with fiscal responsibility, strong defense, low taxes, etc. |
|
|
|