In response to:

Social Conservatives: GOP Can't Live Without Them

Troglodite Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 3:52 PM
Those who would have the GOP move hard left on social issues point to Mourdock in Indiana and Akin in Missouri as examples of candidates who are fatal to the Party as a whole. It is worth noting, however, that Romney carried both of those states. Even if I wanted to, I would find it hard to make the argument that pro-life (or otherwise socially conservative) candidates in Congressional, state, and local races are the kiss to death to the GOP at the national level.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:22 PM
I believe the Akin issue had more to do with the lack of a run-off. The primary had 3 candidates. Akin barely won a plurality. IF there had been a run-off between Akin and the 2nd place cand., the winner, whomever it was would have had more ppl in his camp. As it was, Akin had almost 2/3 of his base feeling alienated, and when an opportunity arose to "get their guy" the long knives came out. Runoffs force coalition building. Something similar happened in the presidential primaries, where Romney could barely get 30% anywhere but NH.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:24 PM
In terms of the presidential primary, we need to get rid of the winner take all. Let the convention hammer out a workable coalition, if no clear winner emerges. It worked whit Regan/Bush and for 200 yrs prior.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:24 PM
In terms of the presidential primary, we need to get rid of the winner take all. Let the convention hammer out a workable coalition, if no clear winner emerges. It worked whit Regan/Bush and for 200 yrs prior.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:25 PM
to clarify: I believe many who were "anyone but Romney" sat home on Nov 6. They are likely the reason Romney got 4 mil < McCain.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:25 PM
to clarify: I believe many who were "anyone but Romney" sat home on Nov 6. They are likely the reason Romney got 4 mil < McCain.
Troglodite Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:43 PM
Seljo:

I noted a "final tally" which said that Romney actually got more votes in 2012 than McCain did and that Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, but that the two shifts were just not enough to change the outcome.
Reginald10 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:45 PM
It would also help if some of the "swing states" had earlier primaries. If PA had been exposed to the primary battle, perhaps more Pennsylvanians would have been enthused about voting for Romney in the Fall.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:46 PM
Interesting. Where? I was looking @ foxnews.com on their interactive map that can zoom down to the county or presinct.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:51 PM
Perhaps, but earlier is not a good solution, IMO. Less winner take all would help later states have more influence. As it is, Texas had basically no say, even though it is one of the largest states, the primary was basically over.
Troglodite Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:58 PM
S:

I quote someone else's post from some days back and pass it on with no comment:

Romney got more votes in the FINAL tally then did McCain

2012

Barack Obama Democratic 64,182,123
Mitt Romney Republican 60,067,910

2008

Obama / Biden Democratic 69,499,428
McCain / Palin Republican 59,950,323

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=486001
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 5:44 PM
This has to tell you something. Stop listening to conservative talking points. The REPublican party is boxed in by them and until you can think outside the box, you are pretty much doomed.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:12 PM
Agreed.
I believe Romney, who I supported after the nomination, was the main problem.
1) He failed to gather his base. (he ran a general/centrist campaign from the get-go)
1a) he failed to get a significant number of social conservatives, due to a combination of his Mormon faith and perceived flip-flop/wishy-washy-ness on pro-life/pro-choice.
2) He failed to go for the kill in the 2nd-3rd debates.
He was ahead in the polls after the first debate. Why? He was strong, confident, and bold. He LOOKED like a leader. After he was blindsided by the "moderator" in the 2nd debate, he never recovered that confidence. Unfortunately, many ppl make their decision on such superficial things, not issues.
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:25 PM
This is accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic. One thing conservatives tend to forget is that the battleground was in teh middle, not on teh far right. Had ROmney been teh candidate conservatives dream about, he would have alienated even more people in the middle.

This is your dilemma and you will have a hard time being competitive until you grasp it and deal with it.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:30 PM
The exit polls I saw showed Romney did well with independents. There were simply not as many "extremists" on the right as the left had turn out. Perhaps I am wrong. I looked at Ohio exit polls.
Reginald10 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:42 PM
So why did Romney "lose" 3 million voters, who had supported McCain? It was not so much that they changed to Obama voters, but that they stayed home.

Lack of an inspiring candidate, leads to lack of inspired voters.
Which is to say, lack of votes.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:43 PM
I also think he failed to bring a ground campaign of the strength needed in battle ground states. He simply was out-organized by the organizer-in-chief in the ground games.
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 5:37 PM
Exactly! if he had swung far right he would have lost the middle!
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:02 PM
Both Romney and Ryan were pro life.

People understand Pro-life. but these two wingnuts (akin/Murdoch) had a far more reaching audience then their respective states.

They fed into the narrative of a Republican War on woman. Here we are pointing out there is no war on women and here are two clowns saying god wants women that are raped to have babies.

It does not matter what they intended to say, the perception was that they were saying stuff like that.

I would not blame the loss on them, (although they cost us at least one Senate seat for sure) , the loss was a combination of things, but they were a contributing factor to our loss.
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 3:55 PM
That ignores a critical piece of information, i.e. that these candidates were not just conservative, but absurd. Considered as part of a trend, the far far right wack jobs do appear to have an effect on branding. Ignore it as your risk.
Troglodite Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:00 PM
OK, being conservative AND getting oneself seen as absurd is not a good election strategy. On the other hand, I doubt that Mourdock and Akin actually swayed many voters into voting for Obama, though there are some liberals who would have voted for Obama anyway who will play with the GOP's mind by falsely claiming that Mourdock and Akin were the reason.
Seljo Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:08 PM
good point. Do the Dems listen to Republicans or conservatives about their base or campaign strategies?

No.
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:21 PM
I doubt there are many who would point to that moment and say "Akin sent me scurrying to the Democrats" That's why I characterized it as a branding issue: branding is a complex phenomenon that generally can't be attributed to a single factor. THis is why commerical entities are so concerned with their brand image.
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:21 PM
No, but they DO pay attention to data.
mulbery Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 5:09 PM
On the contrary, there weren't many swing voters required to lose the Presidential election. And I know plenty of centrist people, especially women, who said that was the last straw. These people are associated with the Republican party and many believe that they are what you'd get under a Republicna President. Not necessarily int he white house, but hey, get a dirty dog close enough to my food and I'll be afraid to eat it.
rhough Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 5:20 PM
You know, having godly values and expecting to make lots of friends or win elections doesn't necessarily work out as we would like. But then again, to the One that matters, you have a friend for life. "Who are my brothers, sisters and mother? Those who do the will of my Father in heaven." Jesus in Matt 12: 46-50
One of the largest elephants in the GOP's post-election room is the fate of Christian and other social conservatives. Party honchos can't just wish this problem away -- or, maybe they can.

There has been increasing hostility toward Christian involvement in politics, and the animus hasn't been solely from the left. To be sure, Democrats have taken the lead, demonizing conservative Christians as science-challenged scolds who don't care about women's "reproductive rights," but there is plenty of antipathy from certain elements within the Republican Party, as well.

Many establishment and some libertarian Republicans have long looked upon Christian conservatives with mild, condescending...