Why did Romney lose?

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352567795' post='843125']...[/quote]The obvious answer it seems is that that the Republican party needs to look even more like the Democrats

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352569031' post='843142']
The African American vote went to Obama because of one main reason. You don't get into the high 90's with a group because you're making them all happy.
[/quote]Difficult to separate that percentage between racism and stupidity, which are usually bedfellows anyway. Blacks have always tended to vote Democratic even though it's always been the Democrats standing in the way of real equality and opportunity.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352572486' post='843183']
The obvious answer it seems is that that the Republican party needs to look even more like the Democrats
[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. If they quit trying to ban the stuff they don't like, they would actually be less like democrats.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352572917' post='843191']
Depends on how you look at it. If they quit trying to ban the stuff they don't like, they would actually be less like democrats.
[/quote]You may be correct, Mike but they will lose my vote and the vote of tens of thousands if not millions to whom those things are important.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352573206' post='843194']
You may be correct, Mike but they will lose my vote and the vote of tens of thousands if not millions to whom those things are important.
[/quote]

Already happening because Romney wasn't "enough". Welcome to the USSA

[Daniel]

Later.

[Links2k]

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352569031' post='843142']
The African American vote went to Obama because of one main reason. You don't get into the high 90's with a group because you're making them all happy.
[/quote]

It would have gone to the democrats in the same percentages regardless the nominee. Blacks do not feel welcomed in the republican party.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='LINKS2K' timestamp='1352576459' post='843228']
It would have gone to the democrats in the same percentages regardless the nominee. Blacks do not feel welcomed in the republican party.
[/quote]

Clinton got around 65%. Still huge, but not close to 100.

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name='Tennjed' timestamp='1352568693' post='843139']


This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Blindly following a party and thinking it is as simple as all or none. I am not a Obama fan by any means, but please tell me how your "great" Romney's actual record is on gun rights?

Blindly following a party and thinking the country can be divided into 2 groups where everyone shares the same ideas is destroying the country. Both Sides
[/quote]

Read posts #26 and 27.

[Daniel]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/opinion/carville-buckwalter-poza-election/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


[b] Carville: GOP routed by reality[/b]
[color=#666666][font=Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif][size=3]
[font=inherit]
By [b]James Carville, [/b]CNN Contributor, and [b]Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza,[/b] Special to CNN[/font][font=arial][size=2]
updated 10:24 AM EST, Sat November 10, 2012[/size][/font][/size][/font][/color][font=inherit]
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121110032808-carville-buckwalter-poza-election-story-top.jpg[/img][/font][color=#666666][font=inherit][size=2]
[font=inherit]
Carville and Buckwalter-Poza say the GOP has the diversifying and youthful population that helped re-elect Obama.[/font][/size][/font][/color][font=inherit]
[font=inherit]
[font=inherit]
[b]STORY HIGHLIGHTS[/b][/font][list]
[*]Writers predicted that diverse, liberal youth voters would secure Democratic majority
[*]They say Tuesday election results proved them correct
[*]They say GOP throws money at election, clings to culture war
[*]Writers: Dems win with support of growing groups; GOP sees support of shrinking groups
[/list][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[i][b]Editor's note:[/b] James Carville is a CNN contributor and professor at Tulane University and Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza is a student at Yale Law School. They co-authored "40 More Years: How Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation." Buckwalter-Poza served as deputy national press secretary of the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 election.[/i][/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[b](CNN)[/b] -- In 2009, we wrote a book, "40 More Years: How Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation." Building on Ruy Teixeira and John Judis' 2002 tour de force "The Emerging Democratic Majority" predicting the 2008 election, we argued that America's diversifying and increasingly liberal youth voters would secure a lasting Democratic majority.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Our collaboration seemed appropriate then and is only more so now. On one half of the byline, you have James Carville, 68-year-old white man from Louisiana and professor at Tulane University. On the other side, you've got a 26-year-old second-generation Latina with a fiancée. Voters who look like James are on their way out; voters like Rebecca are our future.[/size][/font][font=inherit]
[color=#666666][font=arial][size=2]
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/110915015925-james-carville-left-tease.jpg[/img][font=inherit]
James Carville[/font][/size][/font][/color][/font][font=arial][size=4]
A few reviewers missed the point of our focus on demographics. Others, primarily young, entitled, progressive men, critiqued us for not recommending that Democrats focus on appealing to young, entitled, progressive men. To this, we plead guilty. Our book was about demographic diversity and the future of the Democratic Party.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/election-new-america/index.html"]Politics: What the election teaches us about ourselves[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
After the midterm elections in 2010, we were mocked viciously. Our thesis was laughable, Republicans hooted, ignoring the book's careful caveat that midterm election turnout differs substantially from that of presidential elections.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
We would like to direct these critics to the Epistle of Jude, 1:10: "Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them."[/size][/font][font=inherit]
[font=inherit]
[font=inherit]
[b]Become a fan of CNNOpinion[/b][/font]Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at[b][url="https://www.facebook.com/CNNOpinion"]Facebook/CNNOpinion[/url][/b] and follow us [b][url="https://twitter.com/CNNOpinion"]@CNNOpinion on Twitter[/url][/b]. We welcome your ideas and comments.




[/font][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Tuesday night proved our 2009 selves could not have been more right. "Mid-20th century, white men made up half of the electorate," we wrote in 2009. "In 2008, white men made up only 36% of the electorate ... and their vote share is dropping by a percentage point a year."[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Our only error was in slightly underestimating the rate at which white men's vote share is shrinking. White voters [url="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1"]were 74%[/url] of voters in 2008; they [url="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president"]were 72%[/url] this year. White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/demographic-political-power/index.html"]Politics: The new American electorate has arrived[/url][/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
In 2009, we also commented on the Republicans' reliance on the far right and evangelical voters: "The shrinking Christian right leaves a void in the Republicans' collection of base groups—and they can't look to any growing groups to replace those votes."[/size][/font][/url][font=inherit]

[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121109120002-sylvester-minority-vote-00004022-story-body.jpg[/img][color=#FFFFFF][font=inherit][size=2]How minorities affected the election[/size][/font][/color][/font][url=""][font=inherit]

[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120925120350-gay-marriage-flags-story-body.jpg[/img][color=#FFFFFF][font=inherit][size=2]What's next for same-sex marriage?[/size][/font][/color][/font][/url][font=inherit]

[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121108020131-ac-minority-and-women-voters-00005026-story-body.jpg[/img][color=#FFFFFF][font=inherit][size=2]Minorities, women helped Obama win[/size][/font][/color][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Mitt Romney outperformed Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, by 5 points with both white voters overall (59%) and white men (62%). He also bested McCain's margin among Republicans, winning 93% of self-identified Republicans as compared to McCain's 90%, and white <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(0, 66, 118); outline: 0px;" target="_blank">evangelical voters, 79% compared with McCain's 73%. Romney lost by relying on a tapped-out, ever-shrinking group of voters.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
By way of contrast, Latinos now make up a greater share of the electorate than they did four years ago: 10% of all voters. Obama [url="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=po_t1#exit-polls"]won 71% of Latinos,[/url] reflecting an increase in support of 4%. Similarly, the proportion of the electorate identifying as Asian increased from 2% to 3%, and Obama's support among Asian voters rose 11 points, from 62% to 73%.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
There's an entire chapter in "40 More Years" on the importance of youth voters. Four years ago, 18% of the electorate was between 18 and 29. Now, youth are 19% of voters. We highlighted a critical trend within the youth vote: "Back in 1972, almost nine in 10 youth voters (87%) were white. By 2004, only 62% of youth said they were white." This year, about 58% of voters 18-29 identified as white; 42.1% of youth self-reported as African-American, Latino, or otherwise nonwhite.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/opinion/navarrette-latino-vote/index.html"]Opinion: How GOP can attract Latino voters[/url][/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
We also predicted the implosion of Republicans' culture war strategy. Our conclusion was that "[w]hat Bush started in 2000 was a two-election trick that had met its natural and timely death by 2008." Our critics tried to answer our claim by citing the success of culture-war tactics in 2004 and their state-level effects in 2008. We ignored them.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
As we said, "The consequence of Republicans' lingering preoccupation with the culture war is that it has led them to become a party of ridiculous positions." Republicans would "have to be certifiable," our sage selves circa 2009 warned, to ever try a culture war strategy again.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
We could not be more delighted that Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states in the country to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote on Tuesday. What we're downright thrilled about, however, is the fact that Mitt Romney got fewer votes than "traditional" marriage in every one of those states.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
The Republicans did their damnedest to use the specter of homosexual marital bliss to incite their base voters to vote for Mitt Romney. In the past, that has worked. This time, the best they could do with millions of dollars and overt hate mongering—their favorite weapons—was mobilize a conservative minority that voted for "traditional marriage" but rejected Romney.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Some analyses have tried to make 2012 about single women or educated white women or some other narrow slice of the electorate. They're thinking small. The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
Republicans made critical, unforced errors in 2008 and 2012. Our present hope is that Republicans continue to mock rather than read "40 More Years," and that Democrats take heed. It's not that we like saying we told you so. It's just that we wrote an entire book telling you so.[/size][/font][font=arial][size=4]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/opinion/martin-black-vote/index.html"]Opinion: GOP voter suppression fueled black turnout[/url][/size][/font][/font]

[Guest HvyMtl]

Carville, though a quite elliquent writer, is beyond dyed in the wool Democrat. His blood runneth blue. It is important, however, to know how the opposing party percieves you, so you can adapt. So, for those who see his name, read it anyway, as it may be quite informative.

[Glenn]

So let me see f I understand all of this. If Republicans become just like Democrats, we can get some of the Dem's voters, while the conservatives move to third parties. Exactly how is this a winning strategy ? It seems to me that conservatives need to teach the voters why smaller Government less spending, less taxes and controlling the borders are the best things for more people.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='Glenn' timestamp='1352584402' post='843290']
So let me see f I understand all of this. If Republicans become just like Democrats, we can get some of the Dem's voters, while the conservatives move to third parties. Exactly how is this a winning strategy ? It seems to me that conservatives need to teach the voters why smaller Government less spending, less taxes and controlling the borders are the best things for more people.
[/quote]

It wasn't about that, at least not in terms of running folks off. It was rape, abortion, homos, and jesus. Smaller government never made it on some of the women's radar. They were too busy covering their crotches and running for the hills.

[Guest HvyMtl]

No, GOP should not be like Dems. GOP does need to focus on the newer groups of block voters. Their focus on the former major blocks, such as White and Religious Right voter groups, alienated possible supporters from the new major voting blocks. The GOP did not venture out of the comfort zone of tried and true methods which [i]used[/i] to work. Due to this lack of persuing, or at least, understanding these growing voting blocks, the GOP looked out of touch.

I think what they should have focused on smaller government, play down the immigration stance, play down the abortion stance, play down the anti-gay rights stance, and focus on lowering the debt, without increasing taxes, and creating jobs. Yet, Mitt never had a really clear message.

Worse still, to get the primaries won, Mitt had to focus his campaign on winning the GOP base. A base focused on the old voting blocks (Religoius Right, White voters, 2nd A supporters, the wealthy.) This hurt him in the election, due to his rhetoric he had to say to get their support. Due to this, he look like he Flip-Flopped on a lot of key topics crucial to the voters. This alienated the new blocks AND old blocks.

Remember Clinton's message? "It's the economy, stupid." Simple, effective, clear, concise message, and it worked. Why? It was not limited to a few voting blocks, like abortion, or blocking gay rights. It transended the voting blocks.
You do not have to re-invent the wheel in politics. Yet, you do have to pay attention to what is working, and what is not. The GOP did not pay attention. The GOP did not have a simple, effective, clear, and concise message. Edited November 10, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It all boils down to apathy with a candidate. That apathy just gave us our savior back. Deal with it! It's
not like you have a choice in the matter.

Message went the wrong way, he lost. The end.

[Links2k]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352587734' post='843345']
It all boils down to apathy with a candidate. That apathy just gave us our savior back. Deal with it! It's
not like you have a choice in the matter.

Message went the wrong way, he lost. The end.
[/quote]

That about sums it up.

[45guy]

[size=5]The message of this election should have been “it’s the economy stupid” By making a few dumb comments, and letting your enemies control the debates the message was lost never to be seen again. (Remember the debate moderators. The country is on fire and they want to know about gay marriage) the margin of error for Rebubs is little to none. Any mistake or misspoken word is major news while Biden cannot keep is foot out of his month with no coverage at all. All Rebubs response to the abortion issue should have been “I have the same position as the President”, thus removing it from the debate. By allowing the major issues to be social they lost the fiscal responsibility edge that should have led to an over whelming win.[/size]

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352567795' post='843125']Ok, I am going to do a bigger analysis of this, later.

Several things, Mitt even stated these issues.

Lets start with "voting blocks." This term is used to describe certain voters with similar aspects, such as race, creed, sex, income, or age. Several of these blocks, the Young vote, the African American vote, the Hispanic vote, and Women voters are the crucial ones which voted for Obama, and against Romney.

The GOP's stance on several points harmed the party with these voting blocks.

Young vote: Gay marriage, stance on marijauna, Religious Right. War mongering.
In the eyes of the younger generation, they see sexual issues very differently than those 35+. In my experience, coming "out of the closet," or even professing the want to get a sex change, would have led to major conflicts, and rage, when I was young. Not so with them. They actively support those who come out with these sexual issues. They act as if it is no big deal. The blocking of marriage rights for gays, and their right to fight for this nation, harmed the GOP here.
Marijauna and other "recreational" drugs have a different view in this generation, than with the older ones. We had been told these things are extremely bad, and dangerous, and, particularly the case with marijuana, recreational drugs were "gateway" drugs to worse things. Yet, the younger generation has grown up with these recreational drugs done by their parents, and friends. They do not see the point on being hard against these drugs, and favor making them legal. This is something the present GOP opposes.
Religous Right: Most young are not as "up tight" or stress over religous differences. They are more tolerant (and in many cases, IMHO, for the betterment of Christianity) than the older generations, and they do not see the need to push for things like prayer in schools. They see the Religious Right as a negative. And the GOP? Yes, they cater to the Religious Right.
War mongering: Correct perception or not, GOP candidates are seen as war hawks by the younger population. The younger population sees little benefit coming from wars, as they have seen the ample coverage of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. They look at these conflicts as absurd at best, but basically huge waste of lives. And they remember, it was a GOP President pushing for these wars.

The African American vote (IMHO, a misnomer, should be American of African desent, as the culture is not African.) This vote, in the hugest form of irony, has been lost by the GOP, the party of Abe Lincoln. How did this happen? The Dems figured out, during the 1960's, the freedom movement would benefit them in the future. The GOP did not respond to the movement as well. And now, in the eyes of this community, the GOP are for the Whites only. A good piece of work by the Dems to go from the anti-rights party to the defender of the African Americans. True, this is not the biggest of the voting blocks, but 12-14% helps in tight elections.

Hispanic vote: Hispanics, by most aspects, Deeply religious, supportive of the sanctity of marriage, etc., smacks of a voting block primed for the GOP. But, the GOP has stumbled by always looking like the Anti- Hispanic immigration party. This, plus the viewpoint the GOP, thru the blocking of the Dream Act, and supporting the aspects of "papers please" laws, alienated the Hispanic vote. Again, the GOP reinforced the viewpoint they are the "Whites Only" party.
Mitt pointed this out on several occasions, claiming if the GOP loses the Hispanic voting block, they have lost the future elections. Considering the size of, and the speed of which this size is growing, the Hispanic voting block will be crucial in future elections.

Women voters: This block is still growing in impact as more women see elections impacting their health, well being, and their family's health and well being.
For a politcal party claiming to be for less government intervention, it is surprising how much more governing the GOP wants over women's vaginas. Here, the pandering to the Religous Right has pushed women voters towards the Dems.
In addition, the lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and equal pay for equal work, damaged the GOP further. This reinforced the view the GOP is for not only Whites, but only White males.
Attempting to remove the Planned Parenthood funding also damaged the GOP here. 98%+ of the Planned Parenthood funds have ZERO to do with abortions. Of the less than 2% dealing with the topic, the majority, 75%+, goes to counciling, which typically [i]prevents[/i] the abortion. The 98% goes towards women's health, such as cancer screenings, medical treatments, and other health programs to the benefit of women. And ZERO of the federal funding goes to anything abortion related. In the eyes of many female voters, this action, plus additional laws cutting health care for women, is dangerous. Going after Planned Parenthood is a bad politcal move for the GOP.
Arguably, going after Big Bird, and NPT, fits here, as it is a family issue, and parents rely on these educational services for their children, an anti-family stance which may have hurt the GOP with women.

If you look at the perceptions of the GOP, from the views of these voter blocks, it is no wonder Mitt lost.

Add the fact Mitt alienated the likes of Ron Paul supporters (who are a block of active voters, too) in his own party, and yes, Mitt lost.[/quote]

Anyone who believes anything other than what this man said has their head buried in the sand. Times are changing, like it or not. Only if they'd change enough to give 3rd part candidates a fighting chance. Or better yet, do away with party affiliation altogether.

[sigbrown1297]

because he is too white

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='sigbrown1297' timestamp='1352607373' post='843572']because he is too white[/quote]

Yeah, because a vast majority of politicians aren't white.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1352609143' post='843588']
Yeah, because a vast majority of politicians aren't white.
[/quote]

And a vast majority of the population is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How would you do away with party affiliation? How do you "give" 3rd parties a fighting chance?
A party that is lost will die out due to lack of membership or affiliation. The Republican Party is dying right now
and hopefully something like the Tea Party and Libertarians can make something out of it. The money base
has to be there and broad general support is necessary. It can't appear to look "fringe" like a Ron Paul
candidacy looked like.

Demographics have changed so much and the mainstream media will do its best to terrorize any party, other
than its main love, Democrats. Platforms with ideals that attract a broad base will have to be made.

Two party games beat the French and their run off elections. Israel and Germany has to build coalitions to
make up majorities. There are larger shares in 3rd parties in those countries. Those are the only two that
came to my mind. I imagine there are others.

A successful party to rise out of the ashes has to have the right message and stick to it. Also, they have to
have respect for the Constitution and not be afraid to say it.

I'm sure someone will say we need to change something every time the system doesn't go our way, but that's
not the problem.

[Worriedman]

When Obama Care bombs, (and it will, it was designed to), and we move to a single payer system, and our healthcare system completely falters, we will take the whole conversation back up.

We see Haslam capitulating to the exchanges already, he is going to sell us shortly to keep his place at the trough. Harwell already staging Frist and HCA to profit from our discomfiture.

Pretty simple really, the Elite making decisions about how the producers will exist, damn what that old worthless document (Constitution) says, they know best.

[sigbrown1297]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1352609143' post='843588']
Yeah, because a vast majority of politicians aren't white.
[/quote]

Ya, but what percent of population are politicians. I just think that he didn't appeal to the minority and younger group like Obama did. The voting population has changed and more hispanic and younger generations are voting. I wonder what would have happened if Romney was black.

[url="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html"]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html[/url]

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1352637895' post='843654']
When Obama Care bombs, (and it will, it was designed to), and we move to a single payer system, and our healthcare system completely falters, we will take the whole conversation back up.[/quote]

Yep. Obama and the leftest Dems all wanted single payer. They got it, will just take some time for it to inevitably become thus.

- OS