In response to:

Obama's Numbers Went Down, but Romney Never Inspired Voters to Vote

Steve1201 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 12:47 PM
Republicans lost because the supposed "mainstream" media lied and lied and acted as the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:28 PM
Jack, you clearly believe in the progressive illusion. There is one conservative message and it is simple: Being a citizen is better than being a subject.
Jack2894 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 2:14 PM
Earl, Ronald Regan couldn't get elected dog catcher in the modern Republican Party: another thing you guys need to do is get over your Reagan fixation. He's dead. Times have changed.

There is no conservative message. There are several contradictory messages, and they can't be reconciled. If Romney had been able to convince the hard right wing, he would have lost as many votes in the middle as he would have gained on the right.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:59 PM
Did you vote for Romney or against Obama?
Brent150 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:35 PM
I think of myself as conservative, and he convinced me.
Brent150 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:34 PM
NBC was 100% message controlled in the final week of the campaign. They ran ZERO negative stories on Obama.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:12 PM
Jack, you and Steve are both wrong, although Steve is at least partly right in that the MSM did indeed lie for Obama. That could have been overcome, however.
On the other hand, you are totally wrong. A conservative message, properly delivered, would not alienate the middle. Ronald Reagan proved that.
I said during the primaries that Romney could not beat Obama. The "only Romney can win" experts disagreed with me. If Romney could have done the job of convincing conservatives to vote for him, he would have won.
Jack2894 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:00 PM
That, my friend, is the acceptable narrative inside the conservative bubble. It has nothing to do with reality, but it makes you feel like a victim, and thus lessens the pain. Living in a dreamworld will not win you any elections.
In combing through the results of the 2012 election -- apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact -- I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference.

Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).

In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win -- and had reasonable grounds to believe so.

In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage...